Jharkhand High Court
Nirmal Chandra Dubey vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1876 of 2020
1. Nirmal Chandra Dubey, aged about 60 years, son of late Digambar
Prasad Dubey, resident of village Bandanwar, P.O. Bandanwar,
P.S. Pathargama, District - Godda (Jharkhand)
2. Prahlad Pandit aged about 61 years, son of Late Degan Pandit
resident of Raj Kumar Nagar, Matdohar (near Durga Mandir), P.O.
& P.S. Godda, District - Godda (Jharkhand)
3. Ashok Kumar Bhandari aged about 60 years son of late Laxmi
Kant Bhandari, resident of Sarba, Block Porayahat, P.O. & P.S.
Poraiyahat, District - Godda (Jharkhand)
4. Umesh Ram Das aged about 66 years son of late Chaturbhuj Ram
Das, resident of Khatnai, P.O. Khatnai, P.S. - Godda (Hq.),
District - Godda (Jharkhand)
5. Hira Lal Sah aged about 65 years son of late Hari Charan Sah
resident of village Bhatdiha (Nahar Chowk), P.O. Godda, P.S.
Godda (Town), District - Godda (Jharkhand)
6. Sant Kumar Ramdas aged about 62 years son of Sri Shiv Prasad
Ramdas resident of Baksara, P.O. Baksara, P.S. Poryahat, District
Godda (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education &
Literacy, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi
(Jharkhand)
3. The Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education
& Literacy, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District -
Ranchi (Jharkhand)
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District -
Godda (Jharkhand)
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda, P.O. & P.S.
Godda, District - Godda (Jharkhand)
6. The Treasury Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District - Godda
(Jharkhand)
7. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District
Ranchi (Jharkhand).
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Md. Jalisur Rahman, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Satyam Parmar, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
06/27.04.2022 Heard Md. Jalisur Rahman, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Satyam Parmar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"For a direction to pay the pay scale of Rs.680-965/- with its
consequential benefits in promotion, pension, etc. to the present
petitioners, from the date of their appointment, as the present
petitioners are similarly situated as out of 30 teachers, 09 similarly
situated teachers have been given the same pay scale i.e. Rs.680-965/-
in compliance of the order and judgment dated 15.06.2017 (Annexure
- 8) passed in W.P.(S). No.3286 of 2016 (Sanjay Kumar Jha & Others
Versus State of Jharkhand & Others) by this Hon'ble Court and which
was challenged by the State Government in L.P.A. No.567 of 2018
(State of Jharkhand & Others Versus Sanjay Kumar Jha & Others)
(Annexure - 9) but the same has been dismissed as withdrawn and
thereafter, vide memo no.185/godda dated 05.02.2020 (Annexure -
10) benefit has been granted to those similarly situated 09 petitioners
and the present petitioners have been denied till date inspite of their
representation dated 11.03.2020 (Annexure - 11). The action of the
respondents concerned is arbitrary and clear-cut violation of Article
14 & 16 of the Constitution of India."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the
petitioners is squarely covered by judgment passed by this Court in
W.P.(S). 3286 of 2016 disposed of on 15.06.2017. He further submits
that the appeal against the said judgment was ultimately withdrawn by
the State of Jharkhand. The learned counsel submits that a counter-
affidavit has been filed in the present case wherein a letter contained
in Memo No.1336 dated 06.10.2020 has been annexed which is issued
by the District Superintendent of Education, Godda and addressed to
the Director of Primary Education (respondent no.3) seeking
directions and also stating that the case of the petitioners is similar to
that of the aforesaid writ petition. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the matter appears to be pending before the
Director of Primary Education, who may be directed to pass
appropriate order in accordance with law.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has no serious
objection so far as the submission of the petitioners that the Director
of Primary Education may ultimately consider the case of the
petitioners.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly, the
counter affidavit wherein a direction was sought for from the
respondent no.3 by stating that the case of the petitioners is similar to
that of the aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(S). No.3286 of 2016
disposed of on 15.06.2017, this writ petition is disposed of with a
liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent no.3 by filing a
detailed representation along with the records of this case within a
period of one month from today. Upon filing of such representation,
the respondent no.3 is directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners and consider the grievance of the petitioners. In case,
the case of the petitioners is found similar to the case decided in
W.P.(S). No.3286 of 2016 dated 15.06.2017, there can be no reason as
to why similar relief be not granted to the petitioners by the
respondent no.3. However, it is for the respondent no.3 to consider the
case as per law taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment and
any other Circular, Rule etc. that may be applicable to the petitioners.
The reasoned order should be passed within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of the copy of the representation, which
should also be communicated to the petitioners through speed post. If
the petitioners are found entitled to any monetary benefit, appropriate
steps be also taken so that the same is remitted to the petitioners
within a period of three months from the date of the reasoned order.
7. With this observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
8. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
