Savitri Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of School Education and Literacy

¶1

2026:JHHC:4376

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 4033 of 2020

¶4

Savitri Devi, aged about 67 years, wife of Sona Ram Hembram, resident of 28, San Mirgi Lindi, P.O. & P.S. Jamdih, Manikpur, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Jharkhand.

¶5

Nirmala Kachhap, aged about 66 years, wife M.M.P. Khatri resident of Flat No. 03, A, Block No.05, Green Field, New Subhash Colony, Dimna Road, Mango, P.O. & P.S. Mango, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.

¶6

Janki Bari, aged about 64 years, wife of Late Chandra Mohan Bari, resident of village + P.O. Barkundia, P.S. Muffasil, Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Jharkhand.

¶7

Naguri Boipai, aged about 67 years, wife of Naguri Boipai, resident of Chiria Pahari, Kathbari, P.Ο. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Jharkhand.

¶8

Chandni Purty, aged about 68 years, wife of Sanatan Pingua, resident of 19, Shaliburu, Ruiya, Hatgamahria, Gumuria, Balandia, P.O. & P.S.Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

¶9

Bimla Bodra, aged about 54 years, wife of Kali Charan Lohra, Bharbhariya, P.O. & P.S. Manjhari, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Jharkhand. 7. Elish Sinku, aged about 65 years, wife of Lukna Sinku, resident of High School Colony, P.O. & P.S. Jhinkpani, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Jharkhand.

¶10

Bela Dadel, aged about 67 years, wife of A.K. Pankaj, resident of House No. 499A, 19 David Vinod Lane, Basar Toli, P.O. Church Road, P.S. Sadar, Ranchi, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶11

Premsheela Devi, aged about 67 years, wife of Ghanashyam Das, resident of village Matkamhatu, Sankal Bhawan, Near Rungta Garden, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S.Muffasil, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Jharkhand.

¶12

Sanjita Sinku, aged about 62 years, wife of Shashank Pat Pingua, resident of 27, Dudhjori, P.O. Τ.Β. Dumuria, P.S. Hatgamharia, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Jharkhand. 11. Chami Tiriya, aged about 64 years, wife of Ghanshyam Sinku, resident of Tuntakata, Kumardungi, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Jharkhand.

¶13

1

¶14

2026:JHHC:4376

¶15

Margaret Lakra, aged about 70 years, wife of Bilokan Guria, Rajnka, P.O. Jhinkpani, Tonto, P.S. Jhinkpani, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Jharkhand.

¶16

Shanti Lata Lakra, aged about 68 years, wife of Johan Subodh Lakra, resident of Rajnka ACC Colony, Jhinkpani, P.O. & P.S. Jhinkpani, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Jharkhand.

¶17

Kalawati Devi, aged about 66 years, daughter of Shiv Prasad Ram, resident of village + P.O. Chitimiti, P.S. Manjhari, Tantnagar, District East Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Jharkhand.

¶18

Rijhren Lakra, aged about 69 years, wife of Puran Ekka, House No.60, resident of village Gudrubasa, Sankosai, Mednabera, P.O. & P.S. Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. 16. Meera Tamsoy, aged about 65 years, wife of Late Bir Singh Tigua, Ruiya, Bhanganw, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Jharkhand.

¶19

Ershad Ali, aged about 66 years, son of Md. Bakar Ali, resident of House No. 56, Barkandaz Toli, Near Jama Masjid, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Jharkhand. ..… Petitioner (s)

¶20

Versus

¶21

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, H.E.C. Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶22

The Director, Department of School Education and Literacy (Primary Education), Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, H.E.C. Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶23

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Kolhan Division at Chaibasa, P.O., P.S. Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum.

¶24

The District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum, P.O., P.S. Chaibasa, District-West Singbhum ..... Respondent(s)

¶25

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶26

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand No.2, A.C. to G.P.-IV

¶27

C.A.V. ON: 30/01/2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 16/02/2026

¶28

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

2

¶30

2026:JHHC:4376

¶31

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners for allowing equitable relief in the matter of revision of salary in terms of the Resolution of the then Finance Dept., Govt. of Bihar as contained in Memo No. 6022 dated 18.12.1989 as per which the petitioners had been entitled for pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 w.e.f. 1.4.1989.

¶32

3. The petitioners, who have been appointed on different dates between 1976 to 1977 to the post of Assistant Teacher in different schools within the District of West Singhbhum have claimed that they should be given the pay scale of Rs. 14002600 meant for Assistant teacher’s senior scale w.e.f. 1.4.1989.

¶33

4. The petitioners have pleaded and brought on record the Resolution dated 18.12.1989, and have relied upon Clause 13.3 of the said resolution, which reads as under:-

¶34

“ 13(iii). Those teachers who have received promotion into Junior Selection Grade or first time bound promotion after 1^st 1989 shall be given the benefit of promotion for the purpose of fixation of their pay in the Revised scale only with effect from the date they have received promotion, or date on which they complete 12 years of service, whichever is later. ”

¶35

5. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners had also argued that the issue in relation to grant of revised pay scale of Rs. 14002600 to the Assistant Teachers, who had been granted promotion or had completed 12 years, is no more res integra in view of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mahto Vrs. State of Jharkhand as reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 282 . The said order passed by this

¶36

3

¶37

2026:JHHC:4376

¶38

Court dated 11.7.2008 has been assailed by the State and affirmed in L.P.A. No. 136/2009 and S.L.P.(C) No. 21695/2010 .

¶39

6. The petitioners have also relied upon the order passed in L.P.A. No. 202/2017, wherein the Division Bench of this Court while considering the issue having been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court and while taking into account the State Litigation Policy, have criticized the action of the State in preferring appeal.

¶40

7. The petitioners have also relied upon the letter dated 8.9.2019 issued by the Director, Primary Education, wherein direction has been issued to the District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum to extend the benefits to similarly situated persons.

¶41

8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent District Superintendent of Education, wherein it has been primarily contended that the teachers who have been granted 1^st time bound promotion/senior scale on completion of 10 years of service in Matric Trained Scale are only entitled for the benefits of revision of pay scale in terms of Resolution No. 6032 dated 18.12.1989.

¶42

9. Ld. Counsel for the State have contended that since the present petitioners have not been allowed the time bound promotion/senior selection grade promotion similar to the Ajit Kumar Mahto , hence, their case is not at par with the case of

4

2026:JHHC:4376

Ajit Kumar Mahto.

10. A Rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed, wherein at para-9 it has been stated that the Petitioner No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 16 have been allowed the time bound promotion/senior scale prior to 1.4.1989 and hence, they are entitled for the benefits of pay revision in terms of the resolution dated 18.12.1989.

¶47

11. The instant case was heard on 13.2.2025 and the following order has been passed:-

¶48

“ 07/13.02.2025

¶49

Vide para-9 to the rejoinder, the petitioners have submitted that 10 out of 17 petitioners who possess the requisite qualification, have already been granted the pay scale of Time Bound Promotion.

¶50

2. At this stage, learned counsel Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, submits that he needs some time to verify the aforesaid fact.

¶51

3. Prayer is allowed.

¶52

4. List this case after three weeks, under the heading “for admission.”

¶53

12. Thereafter, the respondents didn’t received any instructions; nor any affidavit regarding the verification of the statement made at para-9 to the rejoinder has been filed and the Court had been constrained to proceed on the basis of the materials available on record.

¶54

13. In view of the specific averments made in the Rejoinder with respect to 10 nos. of petitioners being Petitioner No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 16, who all have pleaded and photocopy of relevant extract of service book of few of whom has been filed with the Rejoinder to demonstrate that they have been allowed time bound promotion, this court holds that they are entitled for the revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 w.e.f. 1.4.1989 5

¶55

2026:JHHC:4376

¶56

subject to verification of their service records by the District Superintendent of Education.

¶57

14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the claim of the writ petitioners being confined to Writ Petitioner No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 16, the respondent D.S.E. is directed to look into their claim on the basis of time bound promotion being allowed to them and pass appropriate order in relation to fixation of their pay scale while considering that similarly situated persons have already been allowed such benefits.

¶58

15. The DSE shall pass a reasoned order within 04 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and if the claim of the petitioners is found to be lawful, their salaries should be re-fixed and since the petitioners have superannuated, necessary steps for re-calculating and re-fixing their post retiral benefits be also undertaken within a period of 08 weeks thereafter.

¶59

16. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed. Pending IAs if any, are closed.

¶60

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶61

Dated:16 /02/2026 Amardeep/ N.A.F.R

¶62

Uploaded 18.02.2026

¶63

6

Savitri Devi v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of School Education and Literacy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri Devi v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of School Education and Literacy

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

Ahmad Raza Khan Vs Ruksana Khatoon

Mother Teresa A.N.M Training School through Its Director Prahlad Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand, through Its Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare

Prem Sagar Dubey Vs Union of India And Ors.

Sheetal Kumar Bid Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dayal Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand