Allowed

Abhilasha Rani v. the State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Jharkhand HC19 Sept 2024WPC/5892/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a writ petition where the High Court of Jharkhand corrected a classification error in the petitioner's appointment letter. The court held the petitioner belongs to the UR category, directed the authorities to modify the letter, calculate arrears, and pay them within six weeks, along with 7% compound interest if payment is delayed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to modify appointment to UR category, verify files, calculate and pay salary arrears within six weeks with 7% compound interest if delayed.

Abhilasha Rani Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5892 of 2022

¶2

¶3

Abhilasha Rani, aged about 36 yeas, wife of Sujit Kumar, Resident of Adalhatu, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Bariyatu, District-Ranchi, presently working as Assistant Teacher, Upgraded High School, Chanho, P.O. & P.S. Chanho, District-Ranchi. ..… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, At: Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi.

¶6

The Director, Directorate Education, of Secondary & Literacy Education School Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, At: Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi.

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Establishment Committee, Ranchi, P.Ο.: G.P.O., P.S.: Kotwali, District: Ranchi.

¶8

The District Education Officer, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S.: Kotwali, District: Ranchi. ..... Respondents

¶9

--------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr. Tiwari, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC-VI

¶11

05/Dated: 19^th September, 2024

¶12

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondentAuthorities to pay the salary of the petitioner from 18.07.2019 till date as the petitioner is dully entitled for for the same.

¶13

The brief facts of the case as per the pleading are that pursuant to the Advertisement No. 21 of 2016, the petitioner

¶14

¶15

became successful for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher, Home Science and accordingly vide Memo No. 2101 dated 18.07.2019; she has been served with the appointment letter.

¶16

It further transpires from Annexure-4, which is the recommendation letter of this petitioner, that her name has been recommended under UR Category, but somehow or the other; in view of Annexure-1, it appears that the petitioner has been appointed under BC-II Category.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though she was under BC-II Category “Kurmi” in the State of Bihar; however, the said caste is not under the BC category in the State of Jharkhand. As such, she never applied under BC category; as she was knowing fully well and accordingly her name was also recommended under the UR category but for the reason best known to respondents, the petitioner has been appointed under BC-II Category and due to this confusion, her salary has not been given. Though, she has represented the respondent-authorities; but all efforts of the petitioner went in vain.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that though her name was recommended from the District Establishment Committee under UR Category; but somehow or the other, she has been appointed under BC-II Category 2

¶19

and therefore, her certificates were asked for further verification. However, he fairly submits that pursuant to the representation filed by this petitioner, the decision is still pending. In this regard, he referred Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit; especially the last paragraph and submits that the case of the petitioner is still under consideration and hopefully the decision will be taken soon.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein, there are certain admitted facts which are mentioned hereinbelow: -

¶21

(i) The name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment under UR Category;

¶22

(ii) The appointment letter was issued to the petitioner under BC-II Category;

¶23

(iii) The District Education Officer vide letter dated 07.10.2023 wrote a letter to the Director Secondary Education, Jharkhand Ranchi for considering the case of the petitioner.

¶24

Having regard to the aforesaid admitted facts, it is crystal clear that though the petitioner belongs to BC category; but neither she applied for BC Category, nor her name was recommended under BC Category; rather the case

¶25

¶26

of the petitioner was recommended under UR Category (Annexure-4). However, due to fault of the respondents; in the appointment letter it has been mentioned that the petitioner has been appointed under BC-II category and only for that reason she has been asked for verification of caste certificate which was not at all required.

¶27

It further transpires from the letter dated 07.10.2023, which reads as follows;-

¶28

Dk;kZy;] ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh] jkWaph

¶29

i=kad 2361

¶30

ß--------------------------vr% bl i= ds ek/;e ls Lekfjr djkrs gw, vuqjks/k gS fd fnukad&16 02 2023 dks ftyk f’k{kk LFkkiuk lfefr ( ek/;fed iz{ks= ) dh cSBd esa fy, x, fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa vuqjks/k gS fd vfHkyk"kk jkuh] uofo;qDr f’kf{kdk] mRefdzr mPp fo/kky; pkUgksa] jkWaph ds BC &2 ds tkfr izek.k i= esa lR;kiu ds dze esa =qfV ik;s tkus ijUrq budh fu;qfDr vukjf{kr dksfV esa gksus dh fLFkfr esa vxzrj dkjokbZ djus ds lanHkZ esa fof/k foHkkx ls fof/k ijke’kZ izkIr djus dh d`ik fd;k tk;A vuqyXud%& ;FkksDr dh Nk;k izfr

¶31

It appears that the case of the petitioner is under consideration. Be that as it may, it is held that since the petitioner was recommended under UR Category, there was no reason, whatsoever, for appointing her under BC-II category.

¶32

Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner is under UR Category and the appointment letter be modified to that extent. Further, the respondent-Authority should verify the file and calculate the arrear of salary and pay the same to the petitioner as early as possible but not beyond a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this

¶33

¶34

order.

¶35

As stated hereinabove; none payment of salary is only due to the latches of the respondent-State; as such, the petitioner would be entitled for 7% compound interest to be paid on the arrear of the salary, if the same is not paid within aforesaid stipulated period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. In other words, if the petitioner will not receive the salary within the aforesaid stipulated period; she would be entitled for interest which shall be calculated from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment.

¶36

Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed in the manner indicated hereinabove.

¶37

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶38

Amardeep/ AFR

¶39

Abhilasha Rani v. the State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhilasha Rani v. the State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Kajal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Coal Mines Provident Fund Pensioner Samaj through Its Vice President Ram Pravesh Tiwari Vs the Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization through Its Commissioner

Lakhiram Rabidas Vs the State of Jharkhand

Monia Lata Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Priya Kumari Vs Union of India