Pandeya Pradhan vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 278 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     W.P. (S) No. 5202 of 2019
                                    ------

1. Pandeya Pradhan, son of late Budhnath Pradhan

2. Ajay Kumar, son of Ramchandra Rajak

3. Manish Chandra Nayak son of Panchanand Nayak

4. Paresh Patar, son of late Sadhu Patar

5. Sanika Nag, son of Mangal Singh

6. Babul Lan Aind, son of Khirostho Dham Aind

7. Bhagan Pradhan, son of late Koka Pradhan

8. Subodh Munda, son of late Maniram Munda

9. Chaitan Manohar Topno, son of Joro Topno

10. Santosh Oraon, son of late Shyam Uraon

11. Shyam Kumar Rajak, son of Manik Prasad Rajak

12. Francis Lakra, son of late Chama Oraon

13. Sainath Mahto, son of Shanti Ram Mahto

14. Ganesh Pahan, son of Late Bazi Pahan

15. Hari Kali Oreya, son of Saimol Oriya

16. Sarweshwar Swansi, son of Chaitan Swansi

17. Kishori Ravidas, son of Ishwar Ravidas

18. Rajesh Ram Nayak, son of Govind Ram Nayak .... .... .... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

2. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Khunti

4. The District Superintendent of Education, Khunti .... .... .... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Petitioners : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate For the Respondent-State: Mr. Karan Shahdeo, A.C. to S.C.-II

------

06/19.01.2021 Heard Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel for the petitioners

and Mr. Karan Shahdeo, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

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.

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for direction upon

the respondents for grant of Grade-1 from the date of their initial date of

appointment/joining which has been disclosed in para 1 of the writ petition.

Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the case of the petitioners is fully covered with the judgment rendered

by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2547 of 2014 and

analogous cases.

Mr. Karan Shahdeo, learned counsel for the respondent-State

accepts this fact that the case of the petitioners is covered with the said

judgement however, he tried to distinguish the said judgment and submits

that the petitioners have obtained decree from the non-recognized college.

Paragraph Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment passed in W.P.(S)

No. 2547 of 2014 is reproduced here-in-below:-

"9. This issue relating to seniority from the date of initial joining and grant of Grade-I scale to the Assistant Teacher in Primary school has engaged the attention of this Court in several matters. The respondent- State has in due deference to the ratio laid down in the case of Arun Sinha & others (supra) now taken a policy decision to grant the said benefit as per the terms of the said resolution quoted herein above to individual incumbents. It would now be proper that the cases of individual petitioners who 42 fall within the terms of the resolution dated 14.12.2015, quoted herein above, be considered by the respondents- District authorities. The District Superintendent of Education of respective districts would examine the individual cases as per the procedure laid down by placing the matter before the District Education Establishment Committee for taking an informed decision in respect of individual claims in accordance with law and the aforesaid policy decision within a reasonable time, preferably 16 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

10. It would not be out of place to record appreciation for the efforts taken by the State counsels and the respondent Department in coming out with the policy resolution, which may possibly reduce institution of large number of cases with similar grievances in this Court.

11. All the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pending I.A. also stand closed."

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of directions

issued in W.P.(S) No. 2547 of 2014 along with analogous cases.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/-