Dr Ram Krit Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr Thr Pr Secretary Higher Technical Education and Skill Dev Department

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S). No. 890 of 2018

¶3

¶4

Dr. Ram Krit Singh ………. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development Department, Ranchi.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Planning & Finance Department, Ranchi.

¶8

The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶9

The Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Ranchi.

¶10

The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶11

The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Centralised Pension Processing Centre, Patna.

¶12

………. Respondents.

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK

¶15

----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Resp. : Dr. Vandana Singh, Sr.SC-III Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

¶16

¶17

09/ 02.01.2024 Heard the parties.

¶18

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the opinion/ decision contained in memo No. 64, Ranchi dated 13.01.2017 and letter No. 776, Ranchi dated 06.04.2017 (Annexures- 15 & 17 respectively) by which petitioner has been denied revision of his pension pursuant to recommendation of 6^th PRC.

¶19

3. As per the facts of the case the petitioner appears to be appointed afresh to the post of Principal which is evident from the appointment letter annexed at Annexure-1/11 to the writ petition. It further appears from perusal of para-5 of the writ petition wherein a chart has been give which shows the initial and fresh appointment of the petitioner to the post of Principal for the period from 01.02.1986 to 21.07.1986 and as such, he is entitled for pay-revision which was wrongly rejected by the respondents vide Annexures-15 & 17.

¶20

2

¶21

Challenging the said Annexures by which the petitioner has been denied the pay-revision as per the recommendation of 6^th PRC, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

¶22

4. Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously argues that petitioner is entitled for the pay-revision in view of recommendation of 6^th PRC. Attention has been drawn to Clause-5(xix) of Resolution of Science and Technology Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi as contained in memo No. 783 dated 31.03.2012 and it is submitted that in the case of the petitioner the respondents have wrongly construed that Clause-16 of the said Resolution is attracted whereas the same is not attracted in the case of the petitioner. It is only Clause-5(xix) which is attracted in the case of petitioner and thus, he is entitled for pay-revision as per recommendation of 6^th PRC.

¶23

5. On the other hand, Dr. Vandana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from Clause-16 of Resolution dated 31.03.2012, it is clear that those who had not been in service from 01.01.1996 are not entitled for the pay-revision. It has been further argued that though petitioner was appointed on 01.02.1986 to the post of Principal but his initial appointment was on 03.01.1966 as Lecturer and as such, appointment was prior to 05.01.1979 and he is not entitled for pay-revision.

¶24

6. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondentBank submits that it is the respondent-State who has to recommend the case of petitioner and after recommendation, the respondent-Bank has to follow the same and make payment as per the direction and recommendation of the respondent-State.

¶25

7. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is entitled for pay-revision. The respondent-authorities have wrongly construed that the appointment of the petitioner was made on 03.01.1966. Admittedly, petitioner was appointed initially on 03.01.1966 to the post of Lecturer but subsequently,

¶26

3

¶27

petitioner was appointed afresh to the post of Principal on 01.02.1986 where he served the Department till 21.07.1986. From bare perusal of Clause-16 and Clause-5(xix) it is crystal clear that petitioner is entitled for pay-revision since appointment to the post of Principal was a fresh appointment and cut-off date 01.01.2006 will not come in the way of releasing and fixing pay/ pension of petitioner as per 6^th PRC since petitioner was very much entitled for the same in view of Clause-5(xix) of the Resolution dated 31.03.2012, page – 69 to the writ petition. Since the respondents have misconstrued the factual aspects as well as legal aspect of the matter, the impugned orders at Annexures-15 & 17 have no leg to stand and therefore, they are fit to be quashed and set aside.

¶28

8. Resultantly, the impugned opinion/ decision contained in memo No. 64, Ranchi dated 13.01.2017 and letter No. 776, Ranchi dated 06.04.2017 (Annexures- 15 & 17 respectively) are hereby quashed and set aside. Since the petitioner has already superannuated in the year 2002, a fresh calculation regarding his enhanced pensionery benefits shall be done and whatever payment is to be made, the same shall be made within a period of 12(twelve) weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The respondent-Bank is also directed to reconsider the matter as per the order of this Court and as per the fresh recommendation of the respondent-State.

¶29

9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.

¶30

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶31

kunal/-

Dr Ram Krit Singh v. the State of Jharkhand Thr Thr Pr Secretary Higher Technical Education and Skill Dev Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Ram Krit Singh v. the State of Jharkhand Thr Thr Pr Secretary Higher Technical Education and Skill Dev Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yasmin Begum Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sushila Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary And Others

Raghu Munda Vs Shri Sanjeev Singh the Senior Superintendent of Police

Usha Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary School Education and Literacy Department

Kaushal Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Balkrishna Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary School Education and Literacy Department