Jharkhand High Court
Jaiprakash Mandal vs State Of Jharkhand on 4 February, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2104 of 2012
(An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
1.Jaiprakash Mandal.
2.Ranjan Kumar Das.
3.Ajay Kumar Jha.
4.Nand Kumar Jha. ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-
Doranda, District-Ranchi.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resource
Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal
House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.
4. District Superintendent of Education, Godda.
..... Respondents
---------
For the Petitioner s : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Bandana Sinha, A.C. to G.P.V
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
By Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by
the petitioners praying therein for quashing and setting
aside the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 432
dated 17.02.2012 issued by respondent No.4, whereby the
representation of the petitioners for grant of Matric Trained
Scale in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- has been rejected
and recovery of excess payment in 20 installment has been
ordered and also for a direction upon the respondent no. 4
for restoring the Matric Trained Scale of pay in the pay
scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- to these petitioners.
3. The facts of the case as disclosed in the instant writ
application is that the petitioners earlier moved before this
Court in W.P.(S) No. 2140 of 2003 for restoration of matric
trained pay scale which was disposed of vide order dated
25.02.2009 passed by this Court by directing the
respondent no. 4 to dispose of the representation and
finally the representation of all these petitioners were
rejected.
4. Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that similar issue arose before this
Court in the case of Arun Sinha and others with analogous
cases which was decided in the favour of those petitioners
and finally the State challenged the aforesaid order of
Single Judge before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 214 of
2008 which was also dismissed and following orders was
passed;
"Learned Single Judge has carefully considered all the
issues involved in the petition and found that the
petitioners were though appointed in the year 1993-94
but they were not provided training by the fault of the
State only and even the training was provided only
after passing of the order by Hon'ble Supreme Court on
05.09.1997. Even when the petitioners completed
training in the year 1999, their result was not
published and after intervention of the Court that
result was published in the year 2002. Therefore, in
that fact situation the petitioners are not at fault in
obtaining training. Not only this, but in our considered
opinion also, once seniority is required to be
determined in view of the Circular dated 25.06.1999
and that stands determined because of that Circular
and the same could not be made ineffective by the
subsequent withdrawal of the said Circular by the
State Cabinet with retrospective effect. However, that
was not the issue decided by the learned Single Judge
as it has been raised by the petitioners but effect of
that Circular, which has already been given, cannot be
taken away and in the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the considered opinion that there is no
merit in these L.P.As. which are, accordingly,
dismissed."
5. Mr. Kumar further submits that the respondent-
State even preferred S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court;
which was also dismissed and now the issue is no more res
integra, as such the prayer made in the instant writ
application with regard to the pay scale of these petitioners
for grant of Matric Trained Scale in the pay scale of Rs.
4500-7000/-may be allowed from the date of initial
appointment and the impugned order be quashed and set
aside.
6. He further submits that even the State of Jharkhand
vide its resolution as contained in Memo No. 3027 dated
14.12.2015 has taken a decision with regard to payment of
matric trained scale from the date of initial appointment.
7. Ms. Bandana Sinha, learned counsel for the
respondent-State, after instructions, submits that the order
passed by the Division Bench has attained finality; as such
similar order may be passed in this case.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the documents including the judgment
passed by this Court, it appears that the Division Bench of
this Court has held that since the petitioners were not at
fault in obtaining training; the benefits of Matric Trained
Scale should not be denied to them.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, the impugned order as contained in Memo No.
432 dated 17.02.2012, is quashed and set aside.
The respondent authorities are directed to pass a
fresh order in the light of judgment referred to herein above
with respect to giving of Matric Trained Scale from the date
of initial appointment of the petitioners and calculate the
consequential benefits thereof and pay the same to the
petitioners within a period of four months from the date of
receipt/production of copy of this order.
10. With the aforesaid terms the instant writ application
stands allowed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 4th February, 2021
Amardeep/A.F.R
