Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumar Jaiswal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4849 of 2010
---------
Vijay Kumar Jaiswal ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation, Dumka having its office at Dumka, P.O.+P.S.-
Dumka, District-Dumka.
3. The Dipot Superintendent, Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation, Dumka having its office at Dumka, P.O.+P.S.-
Dumka, District-Dumka.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka having its office at
Dumka, P.O.+P.S.-Dumka, District-Dumka.
5. The State of Bihar.
6. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Road Transport Bihar,
Patna having its office at old Secretariate, Patna, P.O+P.S.-
Patna, District-Patna.
7. The Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation, Patna having its office at old Secretariate,
Patna, P.O+P.S.-Patna, District-Patna.
8. The Chief Accountant Officer, Bihar, Patna having its office
at Pariwahan Bhawan, Patna having its office at old
Secretariate, Patna, P.O+P.S.-Patna, District-Patna.
9. The Transport Officer, Road Transport Corporation,
Jharkhand having his office at F.F.P.Bhawan, Bhutal,
P.O.+P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Tarun Kr. Mahto, Advocate
For the State of Bihar : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
---------
14/Dated: 1st September, 2021
Heard through V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by
the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent-
authorities to pay the arrears of salary since 1996 to
30.06.2004, 20% on account of 5th pay revision which has
not been paid to the petitioner and further 20% of arrear of
salary as per 5th pay revision from 01.07.2004 till date in
view of memo no. 939 dated 09.10.2009. The petitioner has
also prayed to pay the arrears of salary as per 6th pay
revision along with other consequential benefits.
3. When the case was taken up for hearing, learned
counsel for the petitioner confines his argument only w.r.t.
6th pay revision, arrear of salary and all consequential
benefits.
4. Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that since the issue involved in this case with
respect to payment of 6th pay revision to the petitioner; has
already been decided in the case of Yogendra Mahto and
others (L.P.A.No. 264 of 2016), as such the instant writ
application may be disposed of by giving direction to the
respondent-authorities to settle the claim of the petitioner
in the light of judgment passed in the above referred case.
5. Mr. Tarun Kr.Mahto, learned counsel for the
respondent-State fairly admits that the issue w.r.t. payment
of 5th pay revision and 6th pay revision has already been
settled, as such the petitioner may file a detailed
representation along with necessary documents and the
same shall be decided in accordance with law and in the
light of judgment passed in the case of Yogendra Mahto
(supra).
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the records of the case, it appears that
the issue involved in this case has already been decided in
the case of Yogendra Mahto (supra). In this regard
relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:
"23. Having given this finding, now the only question
that remains to be decided is whether the appellants
and the other similarly situated employees of the
Corporation were entitled to get their salary in
accordance with the 5th and 6th Pay Commission
recommendations. Admittedly, after the dissolution of
the Corporation w.e.f. 30.06.2004, no Corporation was
created by the State of Jharkhand, and as held above,
the services of the employees stood absorbed in the
State Transport Department w.e.f. 01.07.2004. In that
view of the matter, there cannot be any anomaly
between the salaries which are being paid to the
employees of the State Transport Department and to the
ex-employees of the Corporation on the ground that they
were working in the Corporation and absorbed latter.
The submission of the learned Additional Advocate
General that the employees have been paid all the
benefits that have been paid by the State of Bihar to the
employees of the Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation, is of no help to the State of Jharkhand,
inasmuch as, in the State of Bihar, the Corporation still
continues, but in the State of Jharkhand, the employees
are now the employees of the Transport Department of
the State Government and they are no more the
employees of any Corporation or any corporate body. In
that view of the matter, there cannot be any anomaly in
the salaries of the employees inter se, working in the
Transport Department of the State Government.
25. We accordingly, hold the appellants and the other
similarly situated employees, entitled to the benefits of
5th Pay Revision Committee recommendations w.e.f.
01.07.2004, i.e., after the dissolution of the Corporation
on 30.06.2004, and 6th Pay Revision Committee
recommendations from the dates applicable to the other
employees of the State of Jharkhand. The respondent
State is accordingly, directed to calculate the dues of the
appellants and the other similarly situated employees,
including their retiral dues accordingly, and to make the
payment of all their dues, including the retirement
benefits, positively within a period of six months from
today."
7. Thus, the issue involved in this case has attained
finality and as such the instant writ application is, hereby,
disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a detailed
representation before the respondent No.4 along with
necessary documents and the judgment referred to
hereinabove. The respondent no.4 shall verify the
documents and dispose of the representation with a
reasoned order especially in the light of the judgment
passed in the case of Yogendra Mahto (supra) and all the
admitted dues which will accrue pursuant to passing of the
reasoned order; shall be paid to the petitioner.
It is made clear that since the matter is very
old, as such the entire exercise shall be completed within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of such
representation.
8. With the aforesaid directions the instant writ
application stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
