Jharkhand High Court
Dhirendra Nath Layak vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 88 of 2019
1. Dhirendra Nath Layak
2. Renu Kumari
3. Ambika Prasad Layak
4. Chandi Charan Mandal
5. Shekh Asrat Ali
6. Aniruddha Chakraborty
7. Swapan Kumar Bhattacharya
8. Amar Chandra Gorain
9. Sita Ram Mnadal
10. Kishori Mohan Mandal
11. Narshingh Mandal
12. Chandrakant Jha
13. Dharmender Sharma
14. Yogendra Nath Pandey
15. Tapan Kumar Ghosh --- --- Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Primary Education (now School Education
and Literacy Department), Government of Jharkhand
3. The Director, Department of Primary Education (now School Education and
Literacy Department), Government of Jharkhand
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara
6. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka
7. The District Education Officer, Jamtara --- --- Respondents
8. Lal Kumar Jha
9. Dinabandhu Bhattacharya
10. Shishir Kumar Tiwari @ Shishir Kumar Tiwary
11. Chandra Shekhar Pandey
12. Rebati Ranjan --- --- Proforma Respondents
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
---
For the Petitioners: M/s Ritu Kumar, Samavesh Bhanj Deo,
Shatakshi, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G-II
Ms. Surabhi, A.C to A.A.G-II
----
09 / 03.08.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Review Petition is directed against the judgment dated
14.08.2019 passed in LPA No. 83/2018 to the extent that in the operative
portion of the order, the learned Appellate Court has not interfered with the pay
fixation part, though recovery part of the impugned order dated 01.06.2006
bearing Memo No. 1153 under challenge in the writ petition, has been quashed.
3. Learned counsel for the review petitioners has taken us to the prayer
made in the writ petition which is quoted hereunder:
1. That in the instant writ application, petitioners pray for issuance of
appropriate writ (s) / order (s) / direction (s) particularly in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the Office Order as contained in
Memo No. 1153 dated 1.6.2006 issued by the respondent no. 6
whereby and whereunder the pay scale of Rs. 680-965/- of B.Sc
untrained allowed to the petitioners vide Memo No. 2232 dated
26.9.2000, is being cancelled and excess amount withdrawn from
the treasury after determination of pay in the said pay scale is to be
recovered in 24 installments and they are entitled to the matric
untrained pay scale of Rs. 535-765/-, which is illegal, arbitrary and
without jurisdiction.
Petitioners further pray to set aside the order dated 5.6.2007
passed vide Memo No. 445 by which after about one year
respondent no. 5 had directed to implement the order issued by the
authority of Dumka i.e. on 1.6.2006 vide Memo No. 1153 and also
directed to forward the format of pay fixation of the petitioners to
DSE, Dumka for his approval which is absolutely illegal and against
the service rule and / or for direction upon the respondents not to
give effect to the impugned order dated 1.6.2006.
4. Necessary averments in that regard have been made at paragraph-22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 35. Reply to the said averments are at
paragraph-39 onwards up to paragraph-52 in the counter affidavit. A perusal
of the writ records do indicate that there was a composite challenge to the
impugned order dated 01.06.2006, whereby the pay scale of the petitioners
was reduced from 680-965/- to Rs. 535-765/- and amount paid in excess was
ordered to be recovered by order dated 01.06.2006, impugned in the writ
petition. Finding of the learned Appellate Court at para-5 and 7 to 9 appear to
suffer an error apparent on the face of the record as above. The impugned
judgment to that effect deserves to be reviewed.
5. However, a perusal of the pleadings of the writ petition concerning the
said prayer and reply thereto by the State in the counter affidavit do not make
out a clear case as to which was the right scale to be accorded to the
petitioners. Pay fixation being in the domain of experts, this Court at the stage
of review is not in a position to give categorical finding as to the right scale of
pay to which the petitioners are legally entitled. However, to meet the ends of
justice, we deem it proper to allow the individual petitioners to make a
representation, duly supported with necessary facts and documents, before the
competent authority / Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand
(Respondent No.3) through proper channel of the District Superintendent of
Education of the concerned districts within a period of three weeks,. Needless
to say, the competent authority / Respondent No. 3 shall consider the
representation of the individual petitioners in accordance with law and take a
decision thereupon in respect of their claim for pay scale within a reasonable
time, preferably within sixteen weeks from the date of the representation.
Proforma Respondents who were also writ petitioners / private Respondents in
the Letters Patent Appeal are also at liberty to make such a representation,
which may be considered in the same manner by the competent authority /
Respondent No. 3, as indicated hereinabove. Review Petition is allowed to the
extent indicated hereinabove.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Deepak Roshan, J)
Ranjeet/
