Ravendra Prasad Das Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

2026:JHHC:699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 3331 of 2018

Ravendra Prasad Das, aged about 68 years, Son of Late Keshab Lal Das, Resident of Adarsh Nagar, Telepara Road, P.O. and P.S-Hirapur, Dist.Dhanbad ... … Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority (JMADA), Dhanbad through its Managing Director, Office at Lubi Circular Road, P.O. & P.S.Dhanbad, Dist.- Dhanbad-826001.

¶7

The Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of Jharkhand, office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist.- Ranchi834002. ... … Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶9

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, Advocate

¶10

-------- Order No. 28 /Dated: 12^th January 2026

¶11

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

¶12

“i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to release forthwith to him the corrected/revised scale of Rs. 2,000-3,800 to Rs. 2,200-4,000 and from Rs. 6,500-10,500 to Rs. 8,000-13,500 and benefit of first ACP Scale of Rs. 10,000-15,2000 recommended by screening committee, found petitioner eligible, along with statutory and penal interest.

¶13

ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to pay the dues of the petitioner along with statutory and penal interest as hereunder:-

¶14

a. Difference amount of pay scale Rs. 2,000-3,800 to Rs. 2,200-4,000 from March 1989-February 2001 i.e. Rs.-40,100/-.

¶15

b. Difference amount of 6^th Pay revision from January 2003-October 2003 i.e. Rs. 3,000/-.

¶16

c. Difference amount of 6^th Pay revision pay scale Rs. 6,500-10,500 to revised pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500 from March 2007 to July 2010 i.e. Rs. 1,12,000/-

¶17

d. Difference amount of 15t ACP from 08.03.2001 to July 2010 as per screening committee held on 17.09.2009 i.e. Rs. 61451800/-.

¶18

e. P. F. amount with contribution of authority i.e. Rs. 2,00,226/-.

¶19

f. 7^th revised pay, arrear with new amended gratuity difference amount applicable at the time of retirement-Dues.

¶20

g. Interest on P.F. and other dues.-Dues.

¶21

iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) order(s), direction(s) for quashing the order dated 08.09.2018 contained in the letter No.1999 dated

¶22

1

¶23

2026:JHHC:699

¶24

11.09.2018 (Annexure-7) issued by the Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Development Authority whereby and whereunder the claim of the Petitioner seeking fixation of his pay scale in the scale of Rs 10,000-15,000 has been rejected.

¶25

And

¶26

For issuance of any other appropriate Writ(s)/order(s) / direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶27

Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as Horticulture Supervisor on 08.03.1977. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.05.1981 contained in Letter No. 14/81 issued by the respondent, he was promoted as Horticulture Officer in the scale of Rs. 1000-1820/- and the same was revised to Rs. 2000-3800/- and subsequently to Rs. 6500-10500/- after the 6^th Pay Revision.

¶28

Thereafter, a letter was issued by the respondents wherein pay scale of employees working in the scale of Rs. 2000-3800 was revised to Rs. 2200-4000/- and consequently ACP was also revised in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- with effect from 01.01.1996 and the employees were made entitled to such benefits with effect from 01.03.2007. Further Horticulture Officer has been classified as Category-II employee with pay scale of Rs. 1000-1820/-.

¶29

On 26.06.2008, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent authority seeking revision of his pay scale. Similarly situated Category-II employees were granted the benefits of 1^st and 2^nd ACP on completion of 12 and 24 years. On 08.02.2009, the petitioner again preferred a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad seeking redressal of his grievance; however, an order has been passed by the respondents on 11.09.2018 rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking revision of his pay scale. Being aggrieved of the action of the respondent authority, the petitioner has filed the instant writ application.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been promoted to the post of Horticulture Officer, since then he has been working on stagnant scale as such under the Assured Carrer Progression

¶31

2

¶32

2026:JHHC:699

¶33

Scheme, he is entitled to 1^st Financial Progression on completion of 12 years of service and again on completion of 24 years of service 2^nd ACP, whereas; the screening committee has recommended for providing 1^st ACP on completion of 24 years of service with effect from 08.03.2001 and the same is wholly against the provision of ACP scheme and the petitioner has illegally been deprived from benefits of 2^nd ACP.

¶34

He further submits that other similarly situated Category-II employees have been provided 2^nd ACP by the respondents and their scale has been fixed on providing benefit of ACP Rs. 12000-16500/-whereas the petitioner’s scale has been fixed under the scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/-.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is a Category-II officer of JMADA but this classification is not as per Class II in the notification of the State Government.

¶36

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits it appears that both the Horticulture Officer as well as Assistant Engineer have the same initial pay scale of Rs. 1000-1820/- as is evident from Annexure-3. However, the Assistant Engineers who were having the same pay scale are getting higher pay scale; whereas the petitioner even after promotion is not getting the same pay scale.

¶37

On 26.06.2008, a representation was preferred by the petitioner for revision of his pay scale at par with that of Assistant Engineer and Personal Officer on the ground that all of them belong to Class-2 post at JMADA. However, nothing had happened and finally the petitioner retired on 31.07.2010.

¶38

A counter affidavit has been filed in this case bringing on record the order dated 11.09.2018 whereby the case of the petitioner seeking revision of pay scale has been rejected. The said order was made impugned subsequently by way of filing interlocutory application. The case of the respondents which is apparent from the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 02.07.2025 pursuant to the order passed by this Court is

¶39

3

¶40

2026:JHHC:699

¶41

that the petitioner was appointed on Class-III post and subsequently promoted to Class-II post; whereas the petitioner is seeking parity with those employees who were directly employed as Class-II officer, therefore the pay scale of directly employed Class-II officer is higher and has to be higher than that of the petitioner who became Class-II officer after promotion.

¶42

In other words, the only stand of the respondent-JMADA is that the persons/employees who were directly appointed on Class-II post cannot be equated with the petitioner who joined on Class-II post after promotion and that is the reason the other employees which have been referred by the petitioner cannot be equated with him.

¶43

This issue was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Kamlakar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.”¹ wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph no. 12 has categorically held that once direct recruits and promotees are in one cadre, the distinction between them disappears at any rate so far as equal treatment in the same cadre for payment of pay scale given is concerned. The birthmarks have no relevance in this connection. For brevity paragraph no. 12 of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:

¶44

“12. We have considered the limited issue. We are of the view that all these appellants should get the same relief as the appellants in the civil appeal which arose out of Special Leave Petition No. 16646 of 1995. Once they were all in one cadre, the distinction between direct recruits and promotees disappears at any rate so far as equal treatment in the same cadre for payment of the pay scale given is concerned. The birthmarks have no relevance in this connection. If any distinction is made on the question of their right to the post of Data Processing Assistants they were holding and to its scale- which were matters common to all of them before the impugned order of the Government of India was passed on 2-7-1990, - then any distinction between Data Processing Assistants who were direct recruits and those who were promotees, is not permissible. We, therefore, reject the respondents' contention. We have examined the record and the common points arising in this case and those in civil appeal which arose out of Special Leave Petition No. 16646 of 1995 and we are unable to find any lawful distinction between the appellants and those in the other appeal which has been allowed.”

¶45

With regard to giving equal pay scale to the petitioner with that of Assistant Engineer and Personal Officer, learned counsel for the respondent-JMADA categorically submits that the petitioner became the

¶46

1 (1999) 4 SCC 756

¶47

4

¶48

2026:JHHC:699

¶49

Horticulture Officer after promotion and the Assistant Engineer and Personal Officer were the direct employees and that is the reason there is a difference in pay scale.

¶50

Admittedly, both Assistant Engineer and Personal Officer are Class-II post and the Horticulture Officer also belongs to Class-II post. Thus, there is no difference between the Assistant Engineer and Personal Officer with that of Horticulture Officer as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that once direct recruits and promotees are in one cadre; the distinction between them disappears and the birthmarks have no relevance;

¶51

Having regard to the aforesaid dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned order dated 11.09.2018 contained in Letter No. 199 rejecting the claim of the petitioner of higher pay scale with that of the Assistant Engineer and Personal Officer, is hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶52

It is held that the petitioner is entitled for the same pay scale what is being given to the other Class-II Officer who have been directly recruited like that of Assistant Engineer and Personal Officer. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to calculate the difference of salary and pay the same within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶53

The instant writ application stands allowed.

¶54

Pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of.

¶55

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶56

12^th January 2026 Amit

¶57

N.A.F.R Uploaded on 28/1/2026

¶58

5

Ravendra Prasad Das v. Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravendra Prasad Das v. Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bansidhar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uttam Kumar Dan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Bablu Alias Satendar Alias Shailendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Bharat Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand