Ashish Akhouri Vs the State of Jharkhand through Pr Secretary Finance Department

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2642 of 2021

¶2

-----

¶3

Ashish Akhouri, aged about 47 years, son of Late A. S. Prasad, resident of Flat No.3F, Phase-2, Subhashree Apartment, Bariatu Road, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶4

Abhishek Anand, aged about 42 years, son of Narmdeshwar Ranjan Singh, resident of LIG/R 377-378, High Court Colony, Harmu, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argora, Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶5

Atul Anand, aged about 45 years, son of Sri Vijay Narayan Verma, resident of Flat no.203, Vaishnavi Apartment, Dinkar Nagar, Hatia Railway Station Road, P.O. & P.S. Hatia, Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶6

Amit Kumar Sarangi, aged about 37 years, son of Basant Sarangi, resident of Khakshi Toli, Bhaskar Nagar, Road No.5, Bajra, Hehal, Itki Road, P.O. & P.S. Hehal, Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶7

Neeraj Kumar Singh, aged about 40 years, son of Rajendra Prasad Singh, resident of Kathalmore, Behind 7th Palm Hospital, P.O. Gutuwa, P.S. Nagri, Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶8

Pawan Kumar Sinha, aged 38 years, son of Nirmal Kumar, resident of Qr. No.C2/18, Sachiwalaya Colony, Hinoo, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶9

Shiwesh Kumar Das, aged about 46 years, son of Late Bipin Bihari Lal Das, resident of Qr. No.AII-110, Ρ.Ο. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶10

8 Amit Shekhar, aged about 42 years, son of Late Bipin Bihari Verma, resident of Qr. No.DT 1265, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶11

Rakesh Kumar-I, aged about 45 years, son of Ram babu Gupta, resident of 28/28 Officers' Flat, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶12

Samir Parashar, aged about 47 years, son of Late Janak Kishore Prasad, resident of Flat No.2B, Triveni

¶13

1

¶14

Arunoday Apartment, Ashok Nagar (Mandir Marg), P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argora, Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶15

Arun Kumar Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Rajender Singh, resident of 402, Omkara Hills Apartment, Gas Godown Road, Amethia Nagar, Mahuatoli, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶16

Santosh Kumar-II, aged about 42 years, son of Bharat Nath Singh, resident of Tapovan Residential Estate, Hawai Nagar, Road no.2, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶17

Sadan Kumar, aged about 44 years, son of Rajkishore Prasad Singh, resident of Flat no.2D, Puri Enclave, Don Bosco School Road, Hesag, P.O. & P.S. Hatia, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶18

Rajesh Kumar Singh-1, aged about 43 years, son of Late Ramendra Kumar Singh, resident of Qr. No.B/39, Block- 7, Near Seth Sitaram School, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶19

Mukesh Kumar Ravi, aged about 43 years, son of Sri Kaushal Kishor, resident of Qr. No.C/6, behind Indira Place, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶20

Anil Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Sri Arun Kumar, resident of Cooperative Colony, Bartand, Near Chotanagpur Academy, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶21

Mithilesh Kumar Jha, aged about 43 years, son of J. C. Jha, resident of Shree S. K. Palace, Gouri Shankar Nagar, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶22

Nishant Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Birendra Kumar Prasad, resident of Qr. No.B/1, High Court Colony, Behind Indira Place, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶23

Anunay Kumar, aged about 45 years, son of Sri Kumar Krishna Murari Singh, resident of Basargarh, Hatia, P.O. & P.S. Hatia, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶24

2

¶25

Shreeniwas, aged about 43 years, son of Sri Janardan Singh, resident of House no.238, Krishna Nagar, G. S. Road, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶26

Rakesh Kumar-II, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Kamta Prasad Singh, resident of Qr. No.B-5/6, Miscot Maidan, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶27

Shambhu Nath Pandey, aged about 46 years, son of Late Munni Pandey, resident of LIG R-353/354, High Court Colony, Harmu, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶28

Sanjay Kumar Singh, aged about 49 years, son of Sri R. R. V. Singh, resident of Qr. No.C/10, Block-II, HighCourt Colony, Behind Indira Place, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)..

¶29

Bikas Kumar Tripathy, aged about 47 years, son of Late Sri Ganesh Tiwari, resident of 3K/20, Harmu Colony, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶30

Ranvir Kumar, aged about 43 years, son of Late Brijnandan Prasad, resident of Qr. No.LIG-R/379-380, High Court Colony, Harmu, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶31

Shashi Bhushan Kumar Arya, aged about 38 years, son of Sri Ved Prakash, resident of Flat no.C-106, Satya Sai Enclave, Amethia Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶32

Manoj Kumar, aged about 44 years, son of Hari Shankar Sah, resident of Flat No.A6/G6, SAIL City, New Pundag, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

¶33

Sanjeev Ranjan, aged about 41 years, son of Sri Ganesh Gope, resident of A-4 4C, Sail City, P.O. Sail City, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶34

Ashok Kumar Sahu, aged about 41 years, son of Bhadwa Sahu, resident of Flat no.401, Rupa enclave, Amethia Nagar, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶35

Shailendra Kumar Sonu, aged about 39 years, son of Jugeshwar Singh, resident of LIG/R-385-386, High Court Colony, Harmu, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶36

3

¶37

Amitabh Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Sri Abhimanue Prasad Singh, resident of House no.4, New Alkapuri, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶38

Birendra Kumar Verma, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Dilip Verma, resident of Qr. No.C-3/18, Sachivalaya Colony, Behind Indira Place, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶39

Manoj Kumar Gupta, aged about 42 years, son of Yugal Kishore Prasad, resident of Shankarayan, Ground Floor, Kilburn Colony, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶40

Rajesh Verma, aged about 42 years, son of Rameshwa Ram, resident of C.H. School Road, Dr. Dutta Lane Jhumari Telaiya, P.O. & P.S. Jhumari Telaiya, District Koderma (Jharkhand).

¶41

Deepa Kumari, aged about 40 years, C/o Sri Suman Prasad, resident of Pushpanjali, Near Shiv Mandir, Indrapuri Road no.1, Ratu Road, P.O. & P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶42

Nirmala Hembrom, aged about 37 years, Daughter of Joseph Hembrom, wife of Deepak Lakra, resident of Helen Mansion, flat No.4F, K. M. Road, Naya Toli, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶43

Anupama Kumari, aged about 36 years, Daughter of Late Arjun Prasad, resident of B/44, High Court Colony, Near Seth Sitaram School, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶44

Udit Prakash, aged about 41 years, son of Late Bhola Nath Gagrai, resident of House no.114, Lower Karam Toli, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶45

Rakesh Kumar Rajak, aged about 42 years, son of Late Chhotan Ram Rajak, resident of Tillu Nazir Lane, Lake road, Daily Market, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Daily Market, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶46

Sanjay Kumar-II, aged about 41 years, son of late Deonandan Das, resident of B-17, High Court Colony, Behind Indira Place, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶47

4

¶48

Ranjeet Kumar Pankaj, aged about 41 years, resident of Qr. No.C-7, High Court Colony, Behind Indira Place, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶49

Anuj Kumar, aged about 41 years, son of Late Dasratan Ram, resident of Kokar Chunna Bhatta, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶50

Rajesh Kumar, aged about 43 years, son of Late Mangal Ram, resident of Qr. No.A/4, Pucca Katahal Mohalla, Doranda Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶51

Ambhu Nath Urawn, aged about 40 years, son of Late Saryu Urawn, resident of Qr. No.C/4, High Court Colony, Behind Indira Place, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶52

Rishi Sinku, aged about 42 years, son of Laste Damu Ram Sinku, resident of House no.1674/B-2, Anand Vihar, Kadru, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argor, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶53

Sanjeet Kumar-I, aged about 40 years, son of Late Chandra Ram, resident of Ketari Bagan, Ghat Road, opposite L.A. Garden High School, Samlong, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶54

47 Sanjeet Kumar-II, aged about 40 years, son of Sukhdeo Ravidas, resident of Bajra, Itki, Road, Nadi Toli, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Pandra, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶55

Champa Binha, aged about 39 years, son of Sri Jagnu Binha, resident of village Gitilpiri, Railway Colony, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶56

Atul Kumar Ekka, aged about 40 years, son of C. Anthony Ekka, resident of Dulia Dahar no.1, Hatma Saraitar, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶57

John Murmu, aged about 44 years, son of Late Benjamin Murmu, resident of Qr. No.C/3, Block-C, New High Court Quarter, near Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶58

Prawesh Fredrick Kachchap, aged about 40 years, son of Late P. S. John Kachhap, resident of Kumhar Toli, 20

¶59

5

¶60

Lane, Purulia Road, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶61

Jaya Seema Bhengra, aged about 43 years, Daughter of Nirdosh Bhengra, resident of H.I. 130, Basant Vihar, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶62

Pankaj Kumar-II, aged about 40 years, son of Kailash Baraik, resident of village Bero, P.O. Bero, P.S. Bero, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶63

Praveen Michael Baxla, aged about 49 years, son of Late Pascal Julius Baxla, resident of Konka Siron Toli, near Ratan Talkies, P.O. & P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶64

Shashi Suchita Tirkey, aged about 41 years, daughter of Remejiuse Tirkey, wife of Binay Anugrah Kujur, resident of village Gundu, P.O. Hulhundu, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶65

Ashok Bhagat, aged about 43 years, son of Hari Minz, resident of Lower Karamtoli, P.O. Morhabadi, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). … … Petitioners

¶66

Versus

¶67

The State of Jharkhand, through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Jharkhand Mantralay, Dhurwa, P.O.Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

¶68

Principal Secretary-cum-Law Advisor, Department of Law (Judicial), having its office at Jharkhand Mantralay, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

¶69

High Court of Jharkhand, through its Registrar General having its office at Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶70

Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure, Government of India having its Office at New Delhi, P.O & P.S. New Delhi,

¶71

Director, Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure, Government of India having its Office at New Delhi, P.O & P.S. New Delhi. … … Respondents

¶72

¶73

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

¶74

6

¶75

: Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Resp. State : Ms. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr. SC-II For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate

¶76

¶77

C.A.V. on 09.08.2024 Pronounced on 11/09/2024

¶78

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶79

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs :-

¶80

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s or direction/s for quashing the letter No. 1152 dated 17.08.2020 (Annexure-5) issued under the signature of Principal Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial), whereby and whereunder it has been informed to the petitioners that their case cannot be considered.

¶81

(ii) Upon quashing, appropriate writ/s, order/s or direction/s may be issued to direct the respondent authorities to pay the petitioners, one additional increment on 01.01.2008, as a one-time measure, in order to remove the anomaly arose in respect of the present petitioners due to the implementation of 6^th Central Pay Commission by Resolution No. 660/F dated 28.02.2009 (Published in the Extraordinary Jharkhand Gazette No. 94 dated 28.02.2009) [Annexure-1] alongwith all the consequential benefits with statutory interest.”

¶82

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have been appointed on the post of Assistant pursuant to the Advertisement being Advertisement No. 02/2005 published in the year 2005. The petitioners have submitted their joining on the post of Assistant in the month of AprilMay, 2007 in the Establishment of the High Court of Jharkhand in the Pay Scale of Rs. 6,500-10500 [5^th Pay Revision Commission].

¶83

7

¶84

4. On completion of one year of regular service, the petitioners were granted their first regular annual increment in the month of April-May-June, 2008 (as per their month of joining) as per 5^th Central Pay Commission provision. Thereafter, 6^th Pay Revision was implemented w.e.f. 01-01-2006 by Resolution no.660/F dated 28.2.2009 (published in the Extraordinary Jharkhand Gazette No.94 dated 28.02.2009) as per 6^th Central Pay Commission and accordingly, the date of grant of first regular annual increment to the petitioners was shifted to 01-07-2008 after due adjustment.

¶85

The case of the petitioner is that they got their first regular annual increment after completion of 13-15 months of their appointment (as per their month of joining). Since the increment is granted after completion of minimum 6 month of service but not later than completion of 1 year of service; to resolve the said anomaly, the petitioners have prayed for grant of one additional increment on 01-012008, as a one-time measure, as has been granted by the Central Government as well as by the State Government to those similarly situated employees who were in service as on 01-01-2006 and in whose respect also, the said anomaly had arisen.

¶86

5. As a matter of fact, in the year 2009, the Government of Jharkhand came out with a Resolution

¶87

8

¶88

no.660/F dated 28.2.2009 (published in the Extraordinary Jharkhand Gazette No.94 dated 28.02.2009) implementing 6^th Pay Commission in which the provision regarding date of grant of annual increment to the employees/officers was revised from the very first day of the month of joining the service to first day of July every year uniformly, irrespective of the date of appointment/joining. In the said resolution, it has been stipulated that an employee completing services of six months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1^st July shall be eligible to earn the annual increment. It has also been specified in the said resolution that the first increment after fixation of pay on 1st January, 2006 in the revised pay would be granted on 1st July, 2006 for those employees whose date of next annual increment was between 1st July, 2006 and 1st January, 2007.

¶89

6. In terms of the resolution dated 28.2.2009, all the State Government employees whose date of annual increment was falling between February, 2006 to June, 2006 were granted annual increment on 1st July, 2007.

¶90

7. The aforesaid anomalous situation also arose with respect to the Central Government employees, but the Central Government has resolved the anomaly by granting one increment on 1.1.2006 in the pre-revised scale as a one-time measure and, thereafter, next increment in the revised pay was granted on 1.7.2006 to all such employees

¶91

9

¶92

in terms of Rule 10 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 vide office memorandum under Letter no.10/02/2011-E-III/A dated 19.3.2012 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶93

8. The further case of the petitioners is that subsequently, the Government of Jharkhand also resolved the aforesaid anomaly by extending same benefit to the affected employee vide Resolution No.6/S-16 (fQ.Ka.)01/2009 1185/Ranchi dated 2.6.2012 issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand.

¶94

However, the said relief was extended only to those employees who were in service as on 1^st January, 2006, whereas all other employees who came into service after 1.1.2006 but before implementation of 6th Pay Commission were not provided the said relief despite the fact that they were also on similar footing.

¶95

9. The petitioners made representation before the Law Department through the Registrar General, High Court of Jharkhand in the month of November, 2019 praying therein to grant one increment as a one-time measure in the light of the resolution dated 2.6.2012 issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand.

¶96

10

¶97

10. The aforesaid representation was forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial), Government of Jharkhand vide Letter no.4169/Accts. dated 19.12.2019 and pursuant to the said letter, the Principal Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial) by its Letter no.1152 dated 17.8.2020 informed the Registrar General, High Court of Jharkhand that Planning-cum-Finance Department has opined that in terms of 6^th Pay Commission all the employees who were appointed between January to July will be eligible for next increment in the next year of 1^st July, because for grant of annual increment six months' regular service is necessary. Thus, the case of the petitioners cannot be considered, against which the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶98

11. The counter affidavits have been filed by the respective respondents. The respondent-Central Government and the respondent-Jharkhand High Court are formal parties since the grievance has been raised by the petitioners against the State Government.

¶99

12. The ground has been taken by the State in the counter affidavit that as per provision contained in clause 3 of the resolution dated 28.02.2009, the revised pay structure shall come into effect from 1^st January, 2006 and the same will apply to all State Government employees who

¶100

11

¶101

were in service on 1^st January, 2006 and to all new appointments made on or after the said date. A ground has been taken that all the petitioners of the present writ petition having been appointed between April-2007 to June 2007 have received their revised pay scale under 6^th PRC w.e.f. their initial date of joining itself. Thus, their initial pay scale given to them at the time of appointment was revised as per the provisions of the 6^th PRC from Rs.650010500 (unrevised) to the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 (revised) Grade Pay- Rs. 4200/- which was also further revised to Grade Pay -4600/- from the date of their initial appointment itself and hence, their initial appointment is under the revised pay scale of 6^th PRC.

¶102

13. The further ground has been taken that clause 11 of the resolution dated 28.02.2009 specifies that there will be a uniform date of annual increment, viz. 1^st July of every year. Employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1^st of July will be eligible to be granted the increment and in view of the above provision, petitioners’ claim for grant of an additional increment on 01.01.2008 is not tenable in view of the fact that under the provisions of 6^th PRC, the uniform date of annual increment is 1^st July of every year and the employees completing six months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1^st of July will be eligible to be granted the

¶103

12

¶104

increment. The petitioners have rightly been granted the annual increment based on the provisions of resolution dated 28.02.2009.

¶105

So far as the applicability of resolution dated 02.06.2012 (Annexure-3) in their case is concerned, a stand has been taken in the counter affidavit that the same has been issued in consonance with the decision taken by the Central Government and it is applicable only for those employees who were due to get their annual increment between February 2006 to June 2006 in unrevised pay scale, whereas; in the case of the present petitioners, since, their initial pay scale given to them at the time of appointment has already been revised under 6^th PRC, they cannot be considered for grant of additional annual increment under revised pay scale.

¶106

14. The further stand has been taken by the State that the decision taken by the State Government vide resolution dated 02.06.2012 is a policy decision taken in consonance with the Central Government which is applicable only with respect to those employees who were due to get their annual increment between February 2006 to June 2006 in unrevised pay scale; whereas, the case of the present petitioners is different from those set of employees. Hence, the same is not applicable in case of the present petitioners. Moreover, Central Government has also not

¶107

13

¶108

taken any such decision in case of the employees who are appointed on or after 01.01.2006.

¶109

15. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2005 when the Sixth Pay Revision Commission was not implemented even by the Central Government and in the advertisement the pay scale which was reflected was based on the 5^th Pay Revision Commission.

¶110

16. It has been further submitted that in terms of the 5th Pay Revision Commission, an employee was entitled to get an annual increment on successful completion of a year’s service; whereas in this respect, the change affected by the 6th PRC, was that the uniform date of grant of annual increment was fixed viz. 1st July of every year.

¶111

In so far as the petitioners are concerned; they were granted their first increment on the successful completion of a year service in the year 2008 on their respective dates of initial joining; however, since the State of Jharkhand decided to implement the 6^th PRC recommendations in the State of Jharkhand on 28^th February 2009, with effect from 1^st January 2006; for the year 2008, the petitioners were not granted their first increment on completion of their first year of service, and they got their first increment only on 1^st July, 2008, thereby deferring their annual increment by

¶112

14

¶113

few months. As a result of which the second increment was also shifted to 1^st July, 2009.

¶114

17. It has been submitted that the delay in grant of the second increment has caused substantial monetary loss and as per the petitioners at the time of filing of the writ petition, the gross salary which was being received by them was Rs.94,563/- whereas; if an additional increment as paid for would have been granted, they would be receiving a sum of Rs. 97,356/- per month.

¶115

He has further submitted that the above fact has been stated at paragraph 15 of the writ petition and the respondents have not refuted the same. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the contention of the petitioners that there is a monetary loss has been admitted.

¶116

18. Further submission has been made that the Central Government in a similar circumstance, where the employees appointed prior to 1^st January, 2006, were due to get their increments from February 2006 to June 2006 were deprived of the same because of the implementation of the 6th PRC with effect from 1^st January, 2006; vide Office Memorandum dated 19^th March, 2012 it has been decided to relax the stipulation made in Rule 10 of the CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 by granting them one increment on 1^st January 2006 in the pre-revised pay scale as a one-time

¶117

15

¶118

measure and further ordered that thereafter such employees would get the next increment in the revised pay structure on 1^st July 2006 as per Rule 10 of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008.

¶119

19. Similarly, the State of Jharkhand by Resolution No.1185/Vi dated 2nd June, 2012 adopted the above onetime measure in total and gave benefit of an additional increment to employees who were appointed prior to 1^st January, 2006.

¶120

It has further been submitted that the

¶121

interpretation offered by the petitioners, which is in the line of the Office Memorandum dated 19^th March, 2012 and the Resolution of the State of Jharkhand dated 2^nd June, 2006 is also in conformity with the settled principle of law that service conditions existing on the date of advertisements cannot be altered with retrospective effect.

¶122

20. Relying upon the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Sinha has submitted that the letter No. 1152 dated 17.08.2020 issued under the signature of Principal Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial) may be quashed and set aside and direction

¶123

may be given to the respondent authorities to pay the petitioners, one additional increment on 01.01.2008, as a one-time measure, in order to remove the anomaly arose in respect of the present petitioners due to the

¶124

16

¶125

implementation of 6^th Central Pay Commission by Resolution No. 660/F dated 28.02.2009 (Published in the Extraordinary Jharkhand Gazette No. 94 dated 28.02.2009) alongwith all the consequential benefits with statutory interest.

¶126

21. Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the petitioners of the present writ petition having been appointed after 01.01.2006 have received their revised pay scale under 6^th PRC from the date of their initial joining itself and their initial pay scale was revised as per the provisions of the 6^th PRC from Rs.6500-10500 (unrevised) to the pay scale of Rs. 930034800 (revised) Grade Pay- Rs. 4200/- which was also further revised to Grade Pay -4600/- from the date of their initial appointment itself and hence, their initial appointment is under the revised pay scale of 6^th PRC.

¶127

She has further submitted that Clause 11 of the resolution dated 28.02.2009 specifies that there will be a uniform date of annual increment, viz. 1^st July of every year. Employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1^st of July will be eligible to be granted the increment and in view of the above provision, petitioners’ claim for grant of an additional increment on 01.01.2008 is not tenable in view of the fact that under the provisions of 6^th PRC, the uniform date of annual

¶128

17

¶129

increment is 1^st July of every year and the employees completing six months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1^st of July will be eligible to be granted the increment. The petitioners have rightly been granted the annual increment based on the provisions of resolution dated 28.02.2009.

¶130

22. With regard to the applicability of resolution dated 02.06.2012 is concerned; it has been submitted that the same has been issued in consonance with the decision taken by the Central Government and it is applicable only for those employees who were due to get their annual increment between February 2006 to June 2006 in unrevised pay scale and no benefit of additional annual increment can be granted under revised pay scale.

¶131

The further submission has been made that the decision of the State Government vide resolution dated 02.06.2012 is a policy decision taken in consonance with the Central Government which is applicable only with respect to those employees who were due to get their annual increment between February 2006 to June 2006 in unrevised pay scale and the Central Government has not taken any such decision in case of the employees who are appointed on or after 01.01.2006.

¶132

18

¶133

Relying upon the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the State has prayed that the impugned letter No. 1152 dated 17.08.2020 may not be interfered with.

¶134

23. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Jharkhand High Court, has submitted that the petitioners have got no grievance specifically directed against the respondent-Jharkhand High Court and, therefore, he is not addressing the issue on merit.

¶135

24. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings made on behalf of the respective parties along with the documents available on record.

¶136

This Court, in view of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the parties, requires to consider the following issues :-

¶137

i. Whether the petitioners have been discriminated by the respondents for resolving the pay anomaly?

¶138

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the service condition mentioned in the advertisement, and the benefits arising there from can be taken away retrospectively?

¶139

25. Since both these issues are interlinked, both are simultaneously being dealt with herein. For answering the aforesaid issues, the facts involved in this case as well as the legal position are required to be considered.

¶140

19

¶141

The petitioners were appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2005 when the sixth pay revision commission was not implemented even by the Central Government and in the advertisement the pay scale which was reflected was based on the 5^th Pay Revision Commission.

¶142

26. In terms of the 5th Pay Revision Commission, an employee was entitled to get an annual increment on successful completion of a year’s service; whereas in this respect, the change affected by the 6th PRC, was that the uniform date of grant of annual increment was fixed viz. 1^st July of every year.

¶143

27. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, they were granted their first increment on the successful completion of one year service in the year 2008 on their respective dates of initial joining. However, since the State of Jharkhand decided to implement the 6^th PRC recommendations in the State of Jharkhand on 28^th February 2009, with effect from 1^st January 2006; for the year 2008, the petitioners were not granted their first increment on completion of their first year of service, whereas they got their first increment only on 1^st July, 2008, thereby deferring their annual increment by few months.

¶144

20

¶145

The delay in grant of the first and second increment has caused substantial monetary loss per month. The above fact has been mentioned at paragraph 15 of the writ petition but the respondents have not refuted the same. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the contention of the petitioners that there is a monetary loss has been admitted.

¶146

28. It further transpires from records that the Central Government in a similar circumstance, where the employees appointed prior to 1^st January, 2006, were due to get their increments from February 2006 to June 2006 were deprived of the same because of the implementation of the 6^th PRC with effect from 1^st January, 2006; vide Office Memorandum dated 19^th March, 2012 the Central Government has decided to relax the stipulation made in Rule 10 of the CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 by granting them one increment on 1^st January 2006 in the pre-revised pay scale as a one-time measure and further ordered that thereafter such employees would get the next increment in the revised pay structure on 1^st July 2006 as per Rule 10 of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008.

¶147

The contents of the aforesaid Office Memorandum are being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶148

“No.10/02/2011-E.III/A Government of India Ministry of Finance

¶149

21

¶150

Department of Expenditure

¶151

New Delhi, the 19^th March, 2012

¶152

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

¶153

Subject:Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008- Date of next increment in the revised pay structure under Rule 10 of the CCS(RP) Rules, 2008.

¶154

In accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 10 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, there will be a uniform date of annual increment, viz. 1^st July of every year. Employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1^st of July will be eligible to be granted the increment. The first increment after fixation of pay on 01.01.2006 in the revised pay structure will be granted on 01.07.2006 for those employees for whom the date of next increment was between 1^st July, 2006 to 1^st January, 2007.

¶155

2. The Staff Side has represented on this issue and has requested that those employees who were due to get their annual increment between February to June during 2006 may be granted one increment on 01.01.2006 in the pre-revised scale.

¶156

3. On further consideration and in exercise of the powers available under CCS(RP) Rules, 2008, the President is pleased to decide that in relaxation of stipulation under Rule 10 of these Rules, those central government employees who were due to get their annual increment between February to June during 2006 may be granted one increment on 01.01.2006 in the pre-revised pay scale as a onetime measure and thereafter will get the next increment in the revised pay structure on 01.07.2006 as per Rule 10 of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008. The pay of the eligible employees may be re-fixed accordingly.

¶157

4. In so far as the persons serving in the Indian Audit and Account Department are concerned, these orders are issued in consultation with the Comptroller & Auditor General of India.

¶158

Sd/- (Renu Jain) Director ”

¶159

29. The stand in the counter affidavit filed by the Department of Finance, it has been contended that the benefit under the above Office Memorandum of the Central Government dated 19^th March, 2012 or the State of Jharkhand dated 2^nd June, 2012 cannot be extended to the

¶160

22

¶161

petitioners because they were appointed after 1^st January, 2006.

¶162

On the other hand, the petitioners’ contention is that fixing of 1^st January, 2006 cannot be a determinative factor for extending the one time measure and the Court has to ascertain discrimination by looking at the similarities in the situation on the date of appointment and on the date when financial benefit, was taken away.

¶163

30. On perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 19^th March, 2012 of the Central Government and Resolution dated 2^nd June, 2012 by the State of Jharkhand, it is evident that the Central Government as well as the State Government in their own wisdom, have acknowledged the anomaly that has crept up because of the implementation of the 6^th PRC, providing for a fixed date of grant of annual increment viz. 1^st July of every year.

¶164

It further appears that the employees to whom the benefit of one-time measure was extended by the Central Government as well as the State Government, had joined the services of the appropriate government before the implementation of the 6^th PRC and were due to get an annual increment between the period February to June 2006 i.e. the year in which the 6^th PRC was implemented.

¶165

23

¶166

31. So far as the Central Government is concerned; there is no dispute that the 6^th pay revision came into effect from 1^st January, 2006, however, the State of Jharkhand decided to implement the same on 28^th February, 2009 with retrospective effect from 1^st January, 2006. Thus, the petitioners on the date of joining were governed by the 5^th PRC and were therefore, entitled to an annual increment on completion of one year of service. The fixation of the cut-off date as 01.01.2006 cannot be of universal application and allowed to create an artificial distinction when the other circumstances are identical and the problem arising out of such circumstances is also similar. The resolution of disputes arising therefrom therefor has to be similar lest it shall result in hostile discrimination.

¶167

However, because of the implementation of the 6^th PRC with effect from 1^st January 2006 by Resolution dated 28^th February, 2009, the petitioners who were due for grant of their second annual increment from April to May, 2009 were not granted the same and the increment was made payable on 1^st July 2009.

¶168

32. Therefore, from the above factual scenario, it is evident that the situation and the circumstance in which 6^th PRC was implemented in so far as the petitioners are concerned; is exactly similar to that of the Central

¶169

24

¶170

Government employees who were appointed prior to 1^st January 2006, but was due to get an increment between February to June 2006, and the same had to be deferred to be payable on 1^st July 2006.

¶171

Accordingly, the anomaly in the pay was detected and the Central Government as also the State Government sought to remedy the same by providing an additional increment on 1^st January, 2006. However, in so far as the petitioners and other similarly situated employees are concerned; the same measure has to be adopted and implemented by granting them an additional increment on 01.01.2008. Accordingly, other similarly situated employees of this Court who have also joined prior to implementation of 6^th PRC, they are also entitled for similar benefit though from some other date.

¶172

33. The grant of retrospective effect to the 6^th PRC from 1^st January, 2006 in the State of Jharkhand does not make any actual difference to the problem faced by the petitioners. By grant of retrospective operation, the situation of the petitioners does not change in any manner from that of the people who were employed prior to 1^st January, 2006. The respondent seems to have failed to consider that the cut-off date should not be the date of implementation of the 6^th pay revision commission

¶173

25

¶174

recommendations, but the date on which it is decided to implement the 6^th pay revision commission recommendations. A retrospective implementation cannot be permitted to cause loss to any employee. Such loss needs to be remedied and the employee for whose benefit the pay was revised must actually be benefited.

¶175

34. Accordingly, so far as issue i.e., whether the petitioners are entitled to the service condition mentioned in the advertisement, and the benefits arising there from can be taken away retrospectively are concerned; the submission has been made on behalf of the petitioners that the Office Memorandum dated 19^th March, 2012 and the Resolution of the State of Jharkhand dated 2^nd June, 2006 is also in conformity with the settled principle of law that service conditions existing on the date of advertisements cannot be altered with retrospective effect. In this context reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dr. P. N. Dubey and Other Vrs. State of M.P. reported in 1997(3) SCC 497 wherein at paragraph-1 it has been held that Rules enforced on the date of Advertisement is relevant .

¶176

Further the High Court of Delhi in the case “ Dr. Davinder Singh Brar Vrs. Union of India & Ors. passed

¶177

26

¶178

in W.P.(C) No.756 of 2020 has held that the delay in concluding the selection process was not attributable to the petitioners. The same has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 173 of 2021.

¶179

In the present case also, the delay in concluding the selection process was not attributable to the petitioners as the Advertisement came in the year 2005 and the petitioners were appointed in between April and May, 2007.

¶180

35. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and the settled proposition of law; the impugned order dated 17.08.2020 issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial), is hereby, quashed and set-aside.

¶181

It is held that the petitioners are entitled for an additional increment from 01.01.2008. So far as other similarly situated employees of this Court who have also joined prior to implementation of 6^th PRC and not approached this Court, they are also held to be entitled for similar benefit.

¶182

Accordingly, the respondent State of Jharkhand is directed to grant an additional increment on 01.01.2008/01.01.2009, as the case may be, in the prerevised pay scale as an onetime measure to the petitioners and other similarly situated employees of this Court and

¶183

27

¶184

thereafter, grant the next increment in the revised pay structure on 1^st July, 2008/1^st July, 2009, as the case may be, and as a consequence of the above, the pay may be refixed accordingly and the benefits, if any must be granted to the petitioners and other similarly situated employees of this Court within a period of 12 weeks from the date of passing of this order.

¶185

Before parting with the order, it is observed that there has been substantial delay in approaching the court by the petitioners, and hence, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any interest on the payment of arrears that will occur because of the re-fixation as a result of grant of the additional increment in the pre-revised pay scale.

¶186

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶187

Fahim/AFR

¶188

Jharkhand High Court,

¶189

Ranchi. Dated 11.09.2024

¶190

28

Ashish Akhouri v. the State of Jharkhand through Pr Secretary Finance Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Akhouri v. the State of Jharkhand through Pr Secretary Finance Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shantanu Raj Vs the Union of India through the Secretary Deptt of Agricultural Research and Education

Om Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arvind Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Higher and Technical Education and Skill Dev Deptt

Umesh Kumar Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Roshan Kumar Vs Union of India through Director General

Akhilesh Kumar Shukla Vs the State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Human Resources Department