Allowed

Sanjay Kumar v. State of Jharkhand through Secretary Deptt of Higher Technical Education and Skill Development

Jharkhand HC5 Aug 2024WPC/6298/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two contractual Librarians sought benefits of the 5th Pay Revision Commission and House Rent Allowance, which were granted to similarly placed persons but withheld from them. The Court held the differential treatment a travesty of justice and directed payment with consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to State of Jharkhand to grant 5th Pay Commission benefits with consequential benefits per appointment agreement, and release HRA from date of entitlement.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6298 of 2018

¶2

------

¶3

Sanjay Kumar, S/o Sidheshwar Sinha, Aged about 48 years, Govt. Polytechnic, Dhanbad, Polytechnic Campus, Bishunpur, PO- B Polytechnic, PS-B Polytechnic, District- Dhanbad.

¶4

Vivekanand Singh, S/o Hari Prasad Singh, Aged about 52 years, Govt. Polytechnic, Dumka Campus, PO- Shivpahar, P.S.-Dumka, District- Dumka.

¶5

… … Petitioners

¶6

-Versus -

¶7

The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development, Yojana Bhawan, Nepal House Campus, Doranda, PO and PS – Doranda, Ranchi- 834002, Jharkhand.

¶8

Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO and PS – Dhurwa, District- Ranchi

¶9

Director, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development, Yojana Bhawan, Nepal House Campus, PO and PS – Doranda, Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand

¶10

State of Bihar, through Secretary, Human Resources (Science & Technology), P.O & P.S.- Secretariat, Old-Sachivalaya, Patna.

¶11

... … Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶14

-----For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mr. Rahul Dev, A.C to S.C (L&C)-III For the Resp. Bihar : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate ------

¶15

17/05.08.2024

¶16

Heard the parties.

¶17

Petitioners Sanjay Kumar and Vivekanand Singh have filed this writ application for issuing direction upon the respondents to grant them benefits of 5^th Pay Revision Commission with further prayer that direction should be issued upon the respondents to grant them benefits of Dearness Allowance at variable rate and benefit of House Rent Allowance (HRA) which they were entitled to receive as per the provision of 6^th Pay Revision Committee but it has been omitted in the letter dated 23.03.2018 (Annexure-II).

¶18

Petitioner no. 1 Sanjay Kumar was appointed as Librarian vide Memo No. S.&T./W.B./2339 PATNA dated 30.11.1996 while petitioner no. 2 Vivekanand Singh was also appointed on the post of Librarian vide Memo

¶19

No. S.&T./W.B./2343 PATNA dated 30.11.1996. It has been stipulated in their appointment letter that they were appointed on a consolidated pay (Basic admissible along with Dearness Allowance and other admissible allowances) per month.

¶20

It is case of the petitioners that they have been granted benefit of 6^th Pay Revision Commission but they have not been granted benefit of 5^th Pay Revision Commission. It is further case of the petitioners that similarly placed other persons have been granted benefit of 5^th Pay Revision Commission. Petitioners have also tried to make out a case that though in the Agreement of Appointment on Contractual basis, it was mentioned in clause‘(a)’ of the agreement that they will be paid Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Medical Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance as admissible on the day of contract. While passing the order granting them benefit of 6^th Pay Commission, House Rent Allowance has not been mentioned.

¶21

Learned counsel on behalf of the State of Bihar submitted that as the petitioners are working in Jharkhand State, it is upon the Government of Jharkhand to provide them benefit as prayed for in this writ application.

¶22

Mr. Rahul Dev, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand submitted that as the petitioners were working on contract, as such they were not entitled for the benefit of 5^th Pay Revision Commission. It was stated that the benefit of 5^th Pay Revision Commission was withdrawn by the State of Bihar.

¶23

It is apparent from the appointment letter of the petitioner that they were appointed on a consolidated pay (Basis pay along with admissible Dearness Allowance and other Admissible Allowances) per month.

¶24

From the perusal of the Letter No.- 500 dated 27.08.2018, it appears that similarly situated persons namely Mrs. Neelam Kumari and Sri Jitendra Prasad have been given benefit of 5^th Pay Revision Commission by the State of Jharkhand.

¶25

It was submitted that the petitioners were working in the same scheme as Mrs. Neelam Kumari and Sri Jitendra Prasad were working.

¶26

It is admitted case of the respondent-State that they have given both Mrs. Neelam Kumari and Sri Jitendra Prasad benefit of 5^th Pay Commission. So, depriving the petitioners from the benefit of 5^th Pay Commission

¶27

-2-

¶28

whereas other similarly situated persons have been granted this benefit will amount to Travesty of Justice.

¶29

The respondent State of Jharkhand is directed to give benefit of 5^th Pay Commission to both the petitioners from the date when they were entitled to get the benefit alongwith consequential benefit as per the terms of agreement of appointment. The petitioners are also entitled for House Rent Allowance. The respondent State is also directed to pass an order for releasing House Rent Allowance to the petitioners from the date of their entitlement.

¶30

This writ application is allowed.

¶31

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶32

(AmbujNath, J.)

¶33

Rahul/-

¶34

-3-

Sanjay Kumar v. State of Jharkhand through Secretary Deptt of Higher Technical Education and Skill Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. State of Jharkhand through Secretary Deptt of Higher Technical Education and Skill Development

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

Shambhu Prasad Lallu Vs State of Jharkhand .

MD Allauddin Alias Ala Uddin Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Salman Khan Vs the Union of India through N.C.B.

Bindeshwari Poddar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rinku Sharan Shrivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Water Resources Department

Fulan Nath Vs State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Shambhu Prasad  Lallu Vs State of Jharkhand .

MD Allauddin Alias Ala Uddin Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Salman Khan Vs the Union of India through N.C.B.

Bindeshwari Poddar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rinku Sharan Shrivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Water Resources Department

Fulan Nath Vs State of Jharkhand

Shambhu Prasad Lallu Vs State of Jharkhand .