Jharkhand High Court
Satyanath Hasda vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 2 March, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4923 of 2014
1. Satyanath Hasda
2. Bajun Murmu ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary,
Human Resources Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education,
Human Resources Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
3. The District Superintendent of Education,
East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur,
P.O. + P.S Sakchi, Dist- East Singhbhum ..... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate
------
05/ 02.03.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioners for following reliefs:
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated
8.10.2009 contained in Memo No.321 issued under the
signature of the District Superintendent of Education,
Jamshedpur (Respondent No.3); whereby and whereunder
the claim of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground
that they have acquired qualification of Teachers Training
after 31.12.1985 and also on the ground that the
department is preparing a seniority list as per the
Promotion Rules, 1993, which was made effective with
effect from 1.1.1986; and also on the ground that promotion
has been granted to the similarly situated persons illegally
only after direction/orders passed by the Hon'ble Jharkhand
High Court.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction
commanding upon the respondents to give them pay scale of
Rs.1640-2900, which was granted to them, but later on vide
order no.1387 dated 01.09.1999 issued by the District
Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, which order has already been set aside by the
order dated 14.06.2001 in C.W.J.C. No.635 of 1999 (R) and
in spite of the said order the respondents have not restored
the pay scale which the petitioners were getting and for
which the petitioners have also filed representations dated
25.6.2006 but the respondents have not passed any order
and are sitting tight over it.
(iii) For issuance of writ of certiorari setting aside the order
issued under Memo No.2396 dated 28.12.1999 issued by
the District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur (Respondent No.3); whereby and whereunder
recovery would be allowed excess amount of pay paid to the
Petitioner No.1 has been passed. In view of the fact, the said
recovery order is contrary to the order dated 14.06.2001
passed by this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C No. 3635 of
1999(R).
(iv) For issuance of a proceeding against the Respondent
No.3 for making his own interpretation of the order
passed by this Hon'ble Court which was affirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, according to his own wish
and rejecting the claim of the petitioners stating therein
that the pay scale of B.SC. Trained teachers was cancelled
by the office vide letter no.1137 dated 1.9.2009 and the
aggrieved teachers moved before this Hon'ble Court for
setting aside the said order and the Hon'ble Court passed
the order to give them the pay scale of B.Sc. Trained
teachers but the Respondent No.2 has interpreted the said
order and stated they were given the B.Sc. trained scale,
which is not in accordance with the Promotion Rules, 1993
which was also not approved by the District Establishment
Committee, thus the Respondent No.3 has committed an
error and acted on his own wish against the judgement
pronounced by this Hon'ble Court which was affirmed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that since similarly situated persons have already been granted
similar relief, as such, the petitioners may be granted liberty to
approach the concerned respondent so that their cases may be
disposed of in the light of several judgments passed by this Court
which has been annexed as Annexure-11.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not have any
objection.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and limited submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, without going into merits of this case,
the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by giving liberty to
the petitioners to file individual representation before the respondent
No.3 within a period of 10 weeks from today. If any such
representation/s is/are filed, the respondent No.3 shall reconsider
the case of the petitioners in the light of several judgments passed by
this Court which has been annexed as Annexure-11 to this writ
application. It goes without saying that while reconsidering the claim
of the petitioners, the respondent No.3 shall not get prejudice by the
impugned order dated 08.10.2009 (Annexure-10).
6. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ
application stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
