Jharkhand High Court
Archana Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 19 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.210 of 2021
-----
Archana Devi, Age about 36 years, wife of Sunil Dubey,
Permanent resident of Village Avasane & P.O. Purbdiha,
P.S.-Chainpur, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
.... ... Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Hatia, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources
Development Department, having its office at Project
Bhawan, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.
3. The Director, Jharkhand State Education Project
Council, having its office at New Cooperative Building,
Shyamli Colony, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-
Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, having its
office at Collectorate Building, Medini Nagar, Palamau, P.O.
& P.S. & District- Palamau.
5. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-
District Programme Officer, Palamau, having its office at
Medini Nagar, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. & District- Palamau.
6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Chainpur,
P.O. + P.S. Chainpur, District- Palamau.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kishore Kr. Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Sunil Kr. Mahto, Advocate
For the JSEPC : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocte
For the State : Ms. Soumya S.Pandey, AC to AAG-I
------
Order No. 08/Dated 19th August, 2023
I.A. No.6868 of 2023
This interlocutory application has been preferred
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the
delay of 35 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Heard the parties.
3. Having regard to the averments made in the
application and submissions made on behalf of the
appellant, we are of the view that the appellant was
prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within
the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 35 days in
preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
4. I.A. No. 6868 of 2023 stands allowed.
L.P.A. No.210 of 2021
5. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under
Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the
order/judgment dated 16.12.2020 passed by learned Single
Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5580 of 2018 by which
the claim of the writ petitioner for disbursement of
honorarium considering him to be imparting studies to
Class 6 to 8 has been denied by dismissing the writ
petition.
6. The matter was heard by this Court on 14.08.2023
and this Court has passed a detailed order after taking into
consideration the submission made on behalf of the parties,
the same needs to be referred herein since the instant
appeal is being disposed of. The same reads hereunder as :-
"Order No.08/dated 14th August, 2023
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
raised the issue that as per requirement for making
appointment as Para Teacher, the minimum
qualification is B.Sc but in case of non-availability of
the candidates having B.Sc, the candidates having I.Sc
with B.A. or Bachelor of Arts will be selected.
2. The petitioner claims to be I.Sc with B.A. and, as
such, she claims that she is having the eligibility
criteria to hold the post.
3. The further claim of the appellant is that
considering the aforesaid eligibility criteria, she was
being paid the honourarium fixed for Para Teacher for
imparting studies from Class 6 to Class 8.
4. The contention, however, has been raised that
she has been subjected to hostile discrimination,
since, one Para Teacher, who was having I.Sc with B.A.
Part-II (Final), has been inducted as a Para Teacher on
the basis of the recommendation made by the Village
Education Committee, even though, such eligibility
criteria was not available for inducting such candidate
to impart studies as Para Teacher.
5. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that even
though she is having the eligibility criteria to hold the
post and accordingly the honourarium fixed for
imparting studies to Class 6 to Class 8 was being paid
but subsequent thereto, the same has been reduced
and started to be paid on the basis of the honourarium
fixed for Class 1 to Class 5, while on the other hand,
the concerned person, namely, Kashmir Chaudhary, is
being paid honourarium fixed for imparting studies to
Class 6 to Class 8 even though he is having no
eligibility criteria to hold the post.
6. Mrs. Kiran Kumari Pasi, at present working as
State Project Director, on being called upon, is present
in the Court.
7. She has submitted by going through the records
that the illegality has been committed by the local
authorities including the Village Level Committee and,
as such, she is proposing to conduct an enquiry.
8. She has also submitted that so far as the claim
of the writ petitioner/appellant is concerned, the same
will be looked into and as per the entitlement, the
same will be paid in favour of the appellant, for which,
she has sought for adjournment and has prayed to list
this case on 19.08.2023.
9. Accordingly, let this case be listed on
19.08.2023 so that appropriate affidavit be filed on or
before the next date of hearing."
7. One affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
Respondent No.3, State Project Director, JEPC in terms of
the order dated 14.08.2023, as quoted and referred
hereinabove, along with an order dated 17.08.2023 as
contained in Memo No.3235.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the JEPC has
submitted that the entire service record of the appellant
has been scrutinized basis upon which the Respondent
No.3 has come to conclusion that the appellant is entitled
for honorarium applicable for the Para Teachers who are
imparting studies to Class 6 to 8.
9. It has further been submitted by referring to the
said order that the Para Teachers who have been appointed
contrary to the eligibility criteria and the Government
officials who were involved, have been decided to be dealt
with by taking disciplinary action.
10. Mr. Kishore Kr. Mishra, assisted by Mr. Sunil
Kumar Mahto, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
has submitted that in view of the order passed by the
Respondent No.3, he is not pressing the instant appeal.
11. Accordingly, the instant appeal, being not pressed,
is disposed of with the direction that the action which has
been decided to be taken against the erring officials and the
beneficiaries be given its logical end without any further
delay so as to give a message to the field offices.
12. The Respondent No.3 is further directed to comply
its own decision regarding disbursement of the honorarium
which has been decided to be paid within a period of 15
days.
13. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the
instant appeal stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Birendra/
