Sebika Chakraborty vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 99 Jhar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              W.P. (S) No. 3441 of 2019
                  Sebika Chakraborty, aged about 29 years, wife of Late Jaydev
                  Chakraborty, resident of Dahigora, Panchpandav, Gopalpur, P.O. & P.S.
                  Ghatshila, District- East Singhbhum                 ... Petitioner
                                           -Versus-
             1.   The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Higher,
                  Technical Education and Skill Development Department, having its
                  office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi
             2.   The Director, Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development
                  Department, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.
                  Doranda, District- Ranchi
             3.   The Registrar, Kolhan University, Chaibasa, having its office at P.O. &
                  P.S. Chaibasa, District- West Singhbhum
             4.   The Finance Officer, Kolhan University, Chaibasa, having its office at
                  P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District- West Singhbhum       ... Respondents
                                           -----

             CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                            -----

             For the Petitioner            : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
             For the Respondent-State      : Ms. Jyoti Nayan, A.C. to G.P.-V

For the Respondent-University : Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate

-----

05/07.01.2021. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Jyoti

Nayan, learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mr. Akash Deep,

learned counsel for the respondent-University.

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 on merit.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction to the

respondents to fix the salary of the deceased husband of the petitioner

under 6th Pay Revision since 19.12.2007 till his death i.e. 26.11.2017 along

with arrears of salary and death-cum-retiral benefits. The further prayer is

made to regularize the petitioner on regular pay scale of Class-IV employee,

as she has been tentatively appointed on 17.12.2018 pursuant to

notification dated 15.12.2018 on compassionate ground on consolidated pay

of Rs.5762/- per month.

4. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on Class-IV

post tentatively in the consolidated pay of Rs.5,762/- per month on account

of death of her husband namely Jaydev Chakraborty, who was posted as

Mali in Ghatshila College, Ghatshila, pursuant to notification dated

15.12.2018. The petitioner joined on 17.12.2018 and she is discharging her

duties with utmost satisfaction of her superior. The pay scale of the

petitioner was not revised by the Human Resources Development

Department, Ranchi under 6th Pay Revision for want of vacant sanctioned

post and notification of appointment and joining letter vide fixation chart

dated 13.02.2015. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on

26.11.2017. The pay scale of the petitioner has not been regularized as yet

and that is why the petitioner has moved before this Court.

5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the judgment rendered by

this Court in the case of Ratni Oraon & another v. The State of Jharkhand &

Others in W.P. (S) No. 7818 of 2012, which was disposed of on 18.12.2013.

He further submits that the matter has been travelled upto the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ

petition has been confirmed. He draws attention of the Court to the order

passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 542 of 2014, dated

08.05.2018, wherein, the statement of the State has been recorded to the

effect that in view of the State Litigation Policy, the State wants to follow

the judgment passed in Ratni Oraon case.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as respondent-

University are jointly submitting that this matter can be disposed of by

directing the respondent-State to consider the case of the petitioner, in view

of the judgment passed in Ratni Oraon case.

7. In view of the above facts, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh

representation along with all the credentials including the judgment as

referred herein above, on which, she is relying before respondent no.2

within a period of three weeks from today. If such representation is filed

within the aforesaid period, respondent no.2 shall take a final call on the

representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order after

considering the judgment rendered in Ratni Oraon case, which was

confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Respondent no.2 will do so

within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a

copy of this order.

8. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands

disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/