Mani Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3426 Jhar

                           1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

               W. P. (S) No. 512 of 2018

1. Mani Oraon, age about 52 years, Son of Late Bhikha Oraon,
   resident of Adarsh Nagar, Juria, P.O. Juria, P.S. and District
   Lohardaga.
2. Suhail Ahmad Ansari, about 56 years, Son of Sri Isaque Ansari,
   resident of Bagru Road, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga,
   District, Lohardaga.
3. Md. Jan Ansari, 53 years, Son of Late Amanat Ali, resident of New
   Azad Basti, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District,
   Lohardaga.
4. Manni Lal, aged 59 years, son of Late Ram Swaroop, resident of
   College Road, Barwa Toli, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga,
   District, Lohardaga.
5. Md. Salahuddin Haider, aged 61 years, Son of Md. Sirazauddin,
   resident of Bangla Road, Amla Toli, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S.
   Lohardaga, District, Lohardaga.
6. Tabir Hussain, aged 56 years, son of Abid Hussain, resident of
   Juria, P.O. Juria, P.S. and District Lohardaga.
7. Shamshad Bano, aged 56 years, son of Md. Islam, resident of
   Amla Toli, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District,
   Lohardaga.
8. Shoaib Akhtar, aged 53 years, son of Abdul Khair, resident of
   Amla Toli, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District,
   Lohardaga.
9. Asfa Khatoon, aged 54 years, wife of Abu Tarique Obedullah,
   resident of Millat Colony, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga,
   District, Lohardaga.
10.Md. Aslam Ansari, aged 57 years, son of Asim Ansari, resident of
   Village Juria, P.O. Juria, P.S. & District Lohardaga.
11.Md. Mushtaque Ahmad, aged 55 years, son of Mohiuddin Ansari,
   resident of Village & P.O. Nari Nawadih, P.S. KISKO, District
   Lohardaga.
12.Anjum Ara, age 52 years, wife of Mushtaque Ahmad, resident of
   Village & P.O. Nari Nawadih, P.S. KISKO, District Lohardaga.
13.Johra Jamal, aged 51 years, wife of Md. Hussain, resident of
   Kisko, P.O. and P.S. Kisko, District Lohardaga.
14.Md. Sahadat Hussain, aged 52 years, son of Ali Bux, resident of
   Bhandra, P.O. and P.S. Bhandra, District Lohardaga.
15.Tasneem Raffat, aged 57 years, wife of Sohail Akhtar, resident of
   Village Amlatoli, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, /District
   Lohardaga.
16.Syeda Nigar Ahmad, aged 56 years, wife of Shoaib Akhtar,
   resident of Powerganj, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga,
   District, Lohardaga.
17.Daulat Mahto, aged 55 years, son of Mahesh Mahto, resident of
   Pandra, Kuru, P.O. and P.S. Kuru, District Lohardaga.
                                               ...    ...     Petitioners
                            Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
                                       2




          2. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
             Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and
             P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
          3. The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy
             Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
             P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
          4. The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga,
             District Lohardaga.
          5. The District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga, P.O. and
             P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga.
                                                ...       ...        Respondents
                                    ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Avishek Chandra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, Advocate 07/29.08.2022

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

"for issuance of an writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents particularly the respondents no. 4 and 5 to grant and give promotion to grade-IV pay scale w.e.f. 01.04.1997 against the sanctioned and vacant post to the petitioners and consequently promote and provide the pay scale to grade- VII from the due date i.e. April, 2002 as entitled in terms of the Promotion Rules, 1993 as the petitioners have been appointed in the year 1988 and have been provided grade- I from the due date i.e. from October, 1988 onwards and in terms of the Rule they are entitled for promotion on grade- IV w.e.f. 01.04.1997 and consequently in grade-VII from April, 2002 and also to pay the consequential benefits on account of the granting the said grade-IV and VII pay scale with admissible interest as the respondents intentionally and deliberately had not taken steps for granting them the said grade-IV and Grade-VII pay scale in time contrary to the Promotion Rules, 1993, though the gradation list has been prepared/published on 29.05.2017, in which the recommendation for granting Grade-IV pay scale w.e.f. 01.04.1997 has already been done, but the promotion and pay scale have not been provided till date.

AND Pass such other order orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1988 as untrained Assistant Teachers and at the time of their appointment, all the petitioners were intermediate

and having higher educational qualification of graduate/post-graduate and since they were possessing higher educational qualification, and even though the petitioners were not trained teachers, they were given the scale of matric trained teacher. However, the letter of appointment or the decision to give matric trained scale to the petitioners have not been filed along with the writ petition.

4. The learned counsel has also submitted that the State Government vide Memo No. 998 dated 07.06.1995 had taken a policy decision that untrained intermediate and graduate teachers appointed against the post of Matric Trained Teachers would get the scale for Grade-I and thereafter, the State Government in the light of recommendation of 4th Pay Commission implemented a revised pay scale vide Government order dated 25.06.1999, but the same was given only to the teachers who had completed their trainings up to 01.01.1996. The matter was taken up by the Fitment Committee and the Fitment Appellate Committee and the objection of different associations were also considered. The Appellate Committee had decided to extend the scale of Rs. 4500-7000 to all the graduate untrained teachers appointed against the post of matric trained and the recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee was implement vide Finance Department letter No. 4568 dated 05.07.2002. It has been specifically stated in para-12 of the writ petition that as per clause 2 (kha) of the letter No. 3805 dated 25.06.1999, it was provided that the seniority of untrained teachers would not be affected even if they do not pass the training examination or undergo the training.

5. The learned counsel submits that in writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 638/2006, the petitioners of that case had prayed that their seniority be fixed from the date of their appointment and benefit of Grade-IV scale be given to them from the date of completion of 8/12 years of their respective service and the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of those petitioners for fixation of the seniority. The learned counsel submits that a number of orders have been passed by this Court granting seniority and promotion as claimed by the petitioners in the present case, but so far as the petitioners are concerned, even though, they are entitled to get

due promotion from the due date in terms of Promotion Rules, 1993, but no action has been taken. The petitioners had filed their representation before the District Superintendent of Education on 12.10.2017, but no decision has been taken so far and consequently, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the grievance of the petitioner can be looked into by the respondent No. 4 who is also the Head of the District Establishment Committee for the purposes of consideration of the claim of the petitioners. He also submits that while considering the claim of the petitioners, the vacancy position as well as the gradation list is also required to be considered along with other applicable circulars / government decisions.

7. At this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the gradation list has already been finalized.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the nature of relief which has been prayed for by the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that the matter is required to be looked into at the first instance, by the respondent No. 4 who is also the Head of the District Education Establishment Committee.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed representations with respect to their claim before the respondent No. 4 along with a copy of this order and the writ records within a period of one month from today. The Petitioners may also refer to various judgments which have been passed by this Court and any other material, which they seek to rely upon.

10. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent No.4 shall look into the grievance of the petitioners and place the matter before the District Education Establishment Committee and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law with regard to the grievance/claim of the petitioners taking into consideration the various circulars/decisions of the respondent/guidelines etc.. The reasoned order should be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the

representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to one of the representatives of the petitioners and the same be also communicated to the petitioners through speed-post at the address which may be provided by them in the representation itself.

11. If the petitioners are found entitled to any benefit out of the reasoned order, the same be also extended to the petitioners at the earliest, but not later than two months from the date of passing of the reasoned order.

12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul