Janardan Upadhyay vs State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 277 Jhar

                                            1                 W.P.(S) No. 5222 of 2016




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

W.P.(S) No. 5222 of 2016

----

Janardan Upadhyay, son of late Ramakant Upadhyay, resident of Tabanna, PO and PS Tabanna, District Sahebganj, at present residing at Haridanga Bazar, Pakur, PO and PS Pakur, District Pakur ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.State of Jharkhand

2.Secretary, Primary and Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagannathpur, District Ranchi

3.Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagannathpur, District Ranchi

4.District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, PO and PS Pakur, District Pakur ...... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Mr. Shadab bin haque, Advocate

----

6/19.01.2021 Heard Mr.Afaque Ahmed, the learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Shadab bin haque, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent State.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video

Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into

account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the

parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and

with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing

the office order bearing memo no.1702 dated 31.12.2007 issued by the

District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, wherein a decision has been

taken to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner in lump sum

and to revise pay fixation of the petitioner and cause of revision has

been mentioned in the said letter that in view of the memo no.31-33

dated 3.1.1986 of the District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj,

the I.Sc and B.Sc. trained pay scale granted in favour of the petitioner

w.e.f. 01.09.1982 and 1.4.1983 approved with the restrpspective effect is

not payable to the petitioner as per the Finance Department letter dated

4.4.1985 [Annex.4] and for further direction to make payment in favour

of the petitioner as was being made earlier by cancelling the revision of

pay made through office order bearing nemo. No.1702 dated 31.12.2007

as has been done in the case of other similarly situated teachers of

different middle schools of Pakur District in pursuance of the various

orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in different writ petitions.

4. Mr. Afaque Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the

judgment of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5645 of 2008 [Subodh Kumar Saha

and Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.] vide order dated

15.06.2012. He submits that pursuant to that, the authorities decided the

Subodh Kumar Saha case by way of Annexure-9 series of the writ

petition. The benefit has been provided in favour of the petitioner of that

case. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of

this judgment.

5. Mr. Shadab bin haque, the learned counsel for the

respondent State tried to distinguish that order on the ground that the

Establishment Committee has found that certain persons have been

promoted illegally and that is why the petitioner is not entitled, however,

this is not acceptable in view of the fact that in the earlier round of

litigation the Hon'ble Patna High Court has already intervened. In Subodh

Kumar Saha case this Court has considered and one another matter

being W.P.(S) No.4970 of 2012 was also disposed of in terms of Subodh

Kumar Saha case. Thus, the contention of the respondent State is not

acceptable.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

matter may be remanded back to the concerned District Superintendent

of Education, Pakur for considering the grievance of the petitioner.

7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition

is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned

District Superintendent of Education, Pakur with representation along

with the above judgment within a period of three weeks. If such a

representation is filed before the District Superintendent of Education,

Pakur, the concerned respondent shall consider the same including the

two judgments (supra) and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a

period of eight weeks, which shall also be communicated to the

petitioner. In case the petitioner's claim is found to be genuine, the

respondent shall pass the order within the aforesaid stipulated time.

8. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition

stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/,