Jharkhand High Court
Manjula Palit Wife Of Shiv Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 6042 of 2015
1. Manjula Palit wife of Shiv Kumar Jha, residing at Village Vikas
Neori More, P.O.- Vikas, P.S.- Kanke, District- Ranchi, Presently
working as Lady Extension Officer at the office of Block
Development Officer, Silli Block, Ranchi
2. Munni Kachhap wife of Jhari Kachhap, residing at Bara Ghagra,
P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi, Presently working as Lady
Extension Officer at the office of Block Development Officer,
Torpa Block, District- Khunti
3. Pushplata Hembrom wife of Dr. Pradeep Baski, residing at Flat
No. 103, Diocesan Village- Siramtoli, P.O. & P.S.- Chutia, Distt.-
Ranchi, Presently working as Lady Extension Officer at the office
of Block Development Officer, Chanho Block, Ranchi
4. Kanak Kumari wife of Srinivas, residing at Sarvodaya Nagar, Dam
site, P.O.- Ranchi, P.S.- Gonda, Distt.- Ranchi, Presently working
as Lady Extension Officer at the office of Block Development
Officer, Ratu Block, Ranchi
5. Pramodini Toppo wife of Ajit Tigga, residing at Kadru
Kumhartoli, P.O. & P.S.- Ashok Nagar, Distt.- Ranchi, Presently
working as Lady Extension Officer at the office of Block
Development Officer, Simdega Block, Simdega
... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, Distt.- Ranchi
4. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Project building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, Distt.- Ranchi
5. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S.
Ranchi, Distt. Ranchi
6. The Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency
(DRDA), Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.- Ranchi, Distt.- Ranchi
... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6631 of 2010
Clara Tete, D/o Late Julious Tete, R/o Sonua Block, West
Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S.- Sonua, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand
3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
5. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi
6. The Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency, West
Singhbhum ... ... Respondents
With
2
W.P. (S) No. 443 of 2011
Navneet Topno S/o Late Niranjan Topno, Naya Hulhundu, Shanti
Nagar, HUlhundu, P.O.- Hulhundu, P.S.- Tupudana, Ranchi
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand,
3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
5. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi,
6. The Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency,
Ranchi ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 1227 of 2011
1. Smt. Manju Rani Prasad, wife of Shri Shishir Kumar Verma,
resident of Simdega, P.O., P.S. & District- Simdega
2. Smt. Albina Dungdung, wife of Shri Samuel Mundu, resident of
Village, P.O. & P.S.- Bolwa, District- Simdega
3. Smt. Kamla Kumari, wife of Shri Jagdeo Nayak, resident of
Kolebira, P.O. & P.S.- Kolebira, District- Simdega
4. Smt. Merry Fulgieseia Lakra, wife of Shri Uday Khalkho resident
of Bano, P.O. & P.S.- Bano, District- Simdega
5. Smt. Kamla Kumari, wife of Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, resident of
Thethai, P.O. & P.S. - Thethai, District- Simdega
... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government
of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi
2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government
of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi
3. Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 2008 of 2011
Kanchan Srivatava wife of Rajiv Ranjan Srivastava, Resident of Near
Jaipal Singh Stadium, Ranchi, Post Office- Kutchery, Police Station-
Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.-
Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.-
Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
4. The Special Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.-
Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
3
5. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
6. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O.-
Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
7. The Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency,
Khuti, District- Khuti, Ranchi
8. Block Development Officer, Murhu Block, Khunti, P.O. & P.S.-
Khunti, District- Khunti ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 4486 of 2011
Ram Charitra Mehta S/o Late Jageshwar Mehta, R/o Chandwa, P.O.
& P.S.- Chandwa, District- Latehar ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Distt.- Ranchi
2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. &
P.S.- Dhurwa, Distt.- Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi
4. The Principal Accountant General, Lekha House, Doranda, Ranchi
5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Latehar
... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 4509 of 2011
Bachan Kumar Jaiswal son of Late Durga Prasad Jaiswal, resident of
Chando, P.O.- Chando, P.S.- Peterbar, District- Bokaro, at present
residing at Kasmar, P.O. & P.S.- Kasmar, District- Bokaro
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Executive Engineer, Tenughat Dam Division No.111, P.O.-
Tenughat, P.S.- Peterbar, District- Bokaro
3. Superintending Engineer, Tenughat Dam Circle No.I, P.O.-
Tenughat, P.S.- Peterbar, District- Bokaro
4. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribag,
District- Hazaribag
5. Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur,
District- Ranchi
6. Special Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi
7. Chairman, District Rural Development Authority, Hazaribag, P.O.
& P.S.- Hazaribag, District- Hazaribag
8. Department of Planning, Development & Rajbhasha, Government
of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur,
District- Ranchi
9. Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer,
District Rural Development Agency, Bokaro
... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6226 of 2011
4
1. Smt. Mala Ghosh wife of Sri Birendra Kumar Das, resident of
Pirpainti Road, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District- Godda
2. Smt. Bageshwari Choudhary wife of Sri Madhav Chandra
Choudhary, resident of Saketpuri Colony, Godda, P.O., P.S. and
District- Godda
3. Smt. Manju Singh wife of Dr. Gauri Shankar Singh, resident of
Bhagalpur Road, Naya Tola, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District- Godda
4. Smt. Meera Kumari wife of Sri Ratan Kumar Jha, resident of Satya
Nagar, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District- Godda
5. Smt. Pushpa Kumari wife of Shri Brahmdeo Choudhary, resident
of Shantinagar, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District- Godda
... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project
Building, H.E.C., P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District-
Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, H.E.C., P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.-
Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project
Building, H.E.C., P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District-
Ranchi
5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, H.E.C., P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.-
Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6813 of 2013
Suresh Ram S/o Late Mahesh Baitha, R/o Garu, P.O. & P.S- Garu,
District- Latehar ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through its chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Distt.- Ranchi
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi
4. The Principal Accountant General, Lekha House, Doranda, Ranchi
5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Latehar
... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 3417 of 2015
Smt. Sashi Prabha wife of Dev Shankar Prasad, Resident of Anuraj
Palace, Kishor Ganj, Road No.1, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.- Argora,
District- Ranchi ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, The Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project
Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District-
Ranchi
5
3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.-
Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
4. The Spl. Secretary, Rural Development, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur,
District- Ranchi
5. The Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi,
Project Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur,
District- Ranchi
6. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, Court
Compound, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Raqnchi
7. The Managing Director, District Rural Department Agency, Court
Compound, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 42 of 2016
1. Anita Kumari wife of Bimlendu Kumar, Daughter of S.P. Verma,
resident of S.K. Ghosh Road, Puradaha, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar,
District- Deoghar (Jharkhand)
2. Maria Soren wife of Sri Bablu Murmu, resident of Village Jiyajore,
P.O.- Sultanatikar, P.S.- Hansdiha, District- Dumka (Jahrkhand)
3. Kalapana Kumari wife of Balanand Jha, Daughter of Late Sharda
Charan Mishra, resident of 22A, Pokhnarila, Pandit B.N. Jha Path,
P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand)
4. Uma Chaurasia, Daughter of Sri Ram Shankar Chaurasia, resident
of Zila School Road, P.O. & P.S.- Dumka, District- Dumka
(Jharkhand)
5. Nibha Verma wife of Sri Bharat Bhushan Prasad, Daughter of Lala
Shivchandra Prasad, resident of Mohalla Rajendra Nagar,
Purandaha, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand)
... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Finance
Department, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government
of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
3. District Rural Development Authority, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.-
Deoghar, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand)
4. Development Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar,
District- Deoghar (Jharkhand)
5. Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.-
Deoghar, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 418 of 2016
Mrs. Mamta Sinha, wife of Radhya Shyam Sinha, At present Lady
Extension Officer, Ichak Block, Hazaribag, Resident of Sabarmati,
Ramchandra Colony, Shivpuri More, Lohsingna More, Hazaribag,
P.O., P.S. & District- Hazaribag ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
6
2. The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi,
P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
4. The Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
5. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
6. The Secretary, Finance Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O.-
Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
7. The Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag, P.O.,
P.S. & District- Hazaribag
8. The District Development Commissioner-cum-Managing Director,
District Rural Development Agency, Hazaribag, P.O., P.S. &
District- Hazaribag
9. Block Development Officer, Ichak Block, Hazaribag, P.O., P.S. &
District- Hazaribag ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 1352 of 2016
1. Sita Ram Prasad son of Sri Biphan Ram, resident of Village &
P.O.- Basna, P.S.- Nawa Bazar, District- Palamau, PIN- 822124
2. Sunil Kumar son of Kameshwar Prasad, resident of Village-
Nimia, P.O.- Sudna, P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamau, PIN-
822102.
3. Nanhe Mian son of Late Abdul Wahid, resident of Nawatoli,
Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamau, PIN-
822101 ... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, H.E.C.,
Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa,
P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi
3. The Additional Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa,
P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi
4. The Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medininagar, P.O. & P.S.-
Daltonganj, District- Palamau
5. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Rural
Development Agency (DRDA), Palamau at Medininagar, P.O. &
P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamau
6. Deputy Development Commissioner, District Rural Development
Agency (DRDA), Palamau at Medininagar, P.O. & P.S.-
Daltonganj, District- Palamau. ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 2838 of 2016
Mrs. Cresentia Back D/o Luckes Back, C/o Sushil Minz, R/o Kokar
Pahantoli, P.O. & P.S.- Bariyatu, Ranchi. At Present Lady Extension
Officer, Gumla, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.- Gumla, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
7
2. The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi,
P.O. & P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
4. The Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
5. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
6. The Secretary, Finance Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O.-
Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
7. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O.-
G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, Ranchi
8. The District Development Commissioner-cum-Managing Director,
District Rural Development Agency, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.-
Kotwali, Ranchi. ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 2763 of 2017
1. Nutan Bala W/o Sri Ranjan Kumar Karn, Resident of Cooperative
Colony, Plot No.222, At + P.O.- B.S. City, Sector- II, City Police
Station, District- Bokaro
2. Manu Ghosh W/o Sri Arun Kumar Das, Resident of C/o Pradip
Kumar Singh, At: Rajwardih, P.O.- Bandhdih, P.S.- Jaridih,
District- Bokaro
3. Mira Kumari W/o Sri Uma Dev Narayan, Resident of Jaridih, P.O.
& P.S.- Jaridih, District- Bokaro
4. Alpana Bharti W/o Sri Pankanj Kumar Anandmurti, Resident of
Alpana Bharti, 21, Fortune City (Aasangi), Adityapur, P.O. & P.S.-
Aditypur, District- Seraikela-Kharsawan
5. Indu Kumari W/o Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Resident of Qtr. No.
233, Sector 1/C, P.O.- Sector-1, P.S.- City Police Station, district
Bokaro
6. Kamla Zarika W/o Sri Krishna Kumar Bari, Resident of Regency
C 3/4 A, Kadma, P.O. & P.S.- Kadma, District- Jameshedpur
7. Kanak Prabha Singh W/o Lalan Singh, Resident of Flat No.22,
Post Office Road, P.O.- Mango, P.S.- Mango, District-
Jameshadpur ... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Jharkhand,
Ranchi, At: Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, At: Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, At: Camp-2, B.S. City, P.O.
& P.S.- Bokaro, District- Bokaro
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan, At + P.O. +
P.S.- Seraikella, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan
5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro, At: Camp-2,
B.S. City, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro, District- Bokaro
6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan,
At + P.O. + P.S.- Seraikella, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan
... ... Respondents
With
8
W.P. (S) No. 6508 of 2017 \
Vijay Ranjan Sinha S/o Late Rajiv Ranjan Sinha, Mohalla Kund,
Chandra Niwas, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj, Palamau
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi,
P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
4. The Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
5. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
6. The Under Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
7. The Secretary, Finance Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O. &
P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
8. The Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.-
Chaibasa, Distt.- West Singhbhum
9. The District Development Commissioner-Cum-Managing
Director, District Rural Development Agency, P.O. & P.S.-
Chaibasa, Distt.- West Singhbhum ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 6666 of 2017
1. Smt. Mala Ghosh wife of Sri Birendra Kumar Das, resident of
Pirpainti Road, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District- Godda
2. Smt. Bageshwari Choudhary wife of Sri Madhav Chandra
Choudhary, resident of Saketpuri Colony, Godda, P.O., P.S. &
District- Godda
3. Smt. Manju Singh wife of Dr. Gauri Shankar Singh, resident of
Bhagalpur Road, Naya Tola, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District- Godda
4. Smt. Meera Kumari wife of Sri Ratan Kumar Jha, resident of Satya
Nagar, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District- Godda
5. Smt. Pushpa Kumari wife of Shri Brahmdeo Choudhary, resident
of Shantinagar, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District- Godda
... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building,
H.E.C., P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi,
Project Building, H.E.C., P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur,
District- Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, Project Building, H.E.C., P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.-
Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District- Godda
5. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, H.E.C., P.O.-
Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
... ... Respondents
9
With
W.P. (S) No. 433 of 2020
Smt. Amita Lal, aged about 60 years, W/o Pradip Kumar Prasad, R/o
Peace Road, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi, at present
working as Lady Extension Officer, Mandar Block, P.O. & P.S.-
Mandar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkahnd
2. The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. &
P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand
5. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand
6. The Under Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand
7. The Secretary, Finance Department, State of Jharkhand, Project
Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
8. The District Development Commissioner-cum-District Rural
Development Agency, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate
: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
: Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
: Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
: Mr. Vijay Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
: Ms. Nidhi Rani, Advocate
: Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
: Ms. Anjali Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC III
Ms. Neha Pandey, A.C. to Sr. SC III
(In W.P.(S). No.6508 of 2017)
Mr. Apoorva Singh, A.C. to S.C. (Mines) II
(In W.P.(S). No.2838 of 2016)
Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, A.C. to G.A. III
(In W.P.(S). No.6813 of 2013)
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A. I
Mr. Chandan Tiwari, A.C. to G.A. I
(In W.P.(S). No.2763 of 2017)
Mr. Uttam Kumar Das, A.C. to G.P VI
Mr. Abhishek Roy, A.C. to GP VI
(In W.P.(S). No.1352 of 2016)
Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. S.C.I
: Ms. Priyanka Boby, A.C. to Sr. S.C. I
(In W.P.(S) No.443/2011, W.P.(S) No.4509/2011,
& W.P. (S) No.6226/2011)
: Mr. Ravi Kerketta, S.C. VI
Ms. Ruby Yadav, A.C. to SC VI
Ms. Deepika Jojowar, A.C. to S.C. VI
(In W.P. (S) No.418/2016)
Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, A.C. to G.P II
Mr. Abhilash Kumar, A.C. to G.P II
(In W.P. (S) No.1227/2011)
: Ms. Archana Kumari, A.C. to AAG V
(In W.P. (S) No.2008 of 2011)
: Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P V
: Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, A.C. to GP V
(In WP(S) No.6631/2010 & WP(S) No.4486/2011)
Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C. Mines III
Mrs. Rukmini Kumari, A.C. to S.C. Mines III
Mr. Faisal Allam, A.C. to S.C. Mines III
Mr. Nitesh Kumar, A.C. to S.C. Mines III
Mr. Ashish Kumar, A.C. to S.C. Mines III
(In WP(S) No.433 of 2020)
Mr. Anuj Burman, A.C. to G.A IV
(In WP(S) No.42 of 2016)
Ms. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to Sr. SC II
(In WP(S) No.6666 of 2017)
: Mr. Shahid Khan, Advocate
(In WP(S) 6042 of 2015)
: Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C. (L&C) II
: Mr. Ashish Shekhar, A.C. to S.C. (L&C) II
: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)II
(In WP(S). No.3417 of 2015)
For the Accountant General: Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Adv.
---
38/19.05.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. These writ petitions have been filed for the following reliefs:-
W.P. (S) No. 6042 of 2015
(i) To issue appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction /
directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Letter No.
5686/Ranchi dated 02.11.2015 issued by the office of District Rural
Development Agency (DRDA), Ranchi whereby and whereunder the
benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured
Career Progression (MACP) given to the petitioners (Lady Extension
Officer) have been directed to be cancelled within two weeks without
assigning any reason which cannot be done in the eye of law as
because these petitioners are working on the post of Lady Extension
Officer which was created and sanctioned by the Department of Rural
Development during the time of unified Bihar and not by District
Rural Development Agency (DRDA), as it appears from the letter
(ii) For quashing the Letter No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018 issued by
the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi
whereby and whereunder a policy decision has been taken against the
petitioners by framing the service condition which is against the
mandate of law and arbitrary in view of the fact that these petitioners
were appointed on the basis of the recommendation of Selection
Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner and their
appointment was made as per the guidelines issued by Personnel and
Administrative Reforms Departments and they were also admitted to
annual increment after passing Hindi Noting and Drafting
Examination and subjected to G.P.F. contribution getting pension and
other pensionary benefits.
(iii) For further direction to Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 to make the
proper service condition Rule regarding Lady Extension Officer as
has been done by the State of Bihar as mentioned in Annexure-9.
(iv) For further hold and declare that in the given facts and
circumstances the employees working as Lady Extension Officer are
Government employees because these posts had been sanctioned and
they are not created by District Rural Development Agency (DRDA)
and they are entitled to the benefits as applicable to Government
employee.
(v) For further direction to Respondent to release the current
salary of the Petitioner No.4 (Kanak Kumari) which has been stopped
since July 2015 without assigning any reason and without the order of
any competent authority in this regard.
W.P. (S) No. 6631 of 2010
(a) For direction upon the respondents to provide the petitioner the
status of govt. servant in the matters of pay protection and other
benefits as they are getting the benefits of G.P.F., pension, etc. in case
of certain employees also.
(b) For direction upon the respondents to create cadres of the
petitioner vis-à-vis other similarly placed persons.
W.P. (S) No. 443 of 2011
(a) For direction upon the respondents to provide the petitioner the
status of govt. servant in the matters of pay protection and other
benefits as they are getting the benefits of G.P.F., pension, etc. in case
of certain employees also.
(b) For direction upon the respondents to create cadres of the
petitioner vis-à-vis other similarly placed persons.
W.P. (S) No. 1227 of 2011
(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate Writ/Order/Direction for quashing the Office order being
Office Order No.21 dated 03.02.2011 (Annexure-10) issued under the
signature of respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder the claims of
the petitioners, being the Lady Extension Officers, for declaring them
to be Government Servants has been declined and for quashing the
Letter No.5298 dated 18.102017 issued by the Rural Development
Department (Annexure-13) followed by Office Order dated 24.10.2017
(Annexure-14) and the Resolution issued by the Respondent No.2
under Memo No.1845 dated 16.05.18 (Annexure-22).
(ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to
recognize the petitioners as Government servants by granting them all
consequential service benefits as well as monetary benefits including
retirement benefits within a specified time.
W.P. (S) No. 2008 of 2011
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order(s) or direction(s)
particularly, a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office
Order No. 21 dated 3.2.2011 issued under the signature of Special
Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand
whereby and whereunder decision has been taken not to give the
status of government servant to the working Lady Extension Officers.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction,
particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the
respondents give equal status to the petitioner, who is working as
Lady Extension Officer, at par with the other government employees
and to release all consequential benefits at par with the regular
government employees alongwith interest.
(iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ / writs or order / orders or direction / directions for
quashing the letter / order dated 30.09.2015 bearing no. 1238 (ii)
issued by the Respondent No.8, being the Block Development. Officer,
Murhu at Khunti whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been
illegally and arbitrarily directed to return/ deposit the amount of
Rs.12,46,069/- (Rupees twelve lakhs forty-six thousand and sixty-
nine), paid as gratuity and leave encashment, prior to 08.10.2015 with
the Block Nazir so that the said sum can be deposited in the state
treasury.
(iv) For the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate writ / writs or order / orders or direction /
directions upon the respondents to forthwith pay to the petitioner his
entire retiral dues including pension, etc. alongwith statutory interest
as the same has been illegally and arbitrarily withheld by the
respondents.
W.P. (S) No. 4486 of 2011
(a) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
illegal order passed by the respondents vide No.21 dated 03.02.2011
followed by Letter No.3261 dated 15.06.2011 and 699/DRDA dated
16.07.2011 whereby the family pension has been stopped as because
the post of the petitioner's wife (died in harness) was not a govt. post
and has also been asked to deposit the entire family pension amount
received by the petitioner till date.
(b) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding
upon the respondents to explain before this Hon'ble Court as to why
the post of Lady Extension Officer has been treated as govt. posts,
been suddenly started treating it as non govt. post / post of
autonomous body, although there are several orders of this Hon'ble
Court and Hon'ble Patna High Court directing the govt. to take policy
decision in the cases of the petitioner's wife and several others.
(c) For issuance of direction upon the respondents to give the
benefit of equal pay for equal work to that, of Extension Officers as it
was sanctioned by the then State of Bihar, for the same function.
W.P. (S) No. 4509 of 2011
(i) To make pensionary benefits to the petitioner i.e. Pension,
Gratuity, Provident Fund, etc. as per the other workers who
were similarly situated.
(ii) To pay the benefits of A.C.P. to which he is legally entitled and
(iii) To pay deputation allowances as per legal entitlement.
W.P. (S) No. 6226 of 2011
(a) A writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate
writ(s), order(s), direction(s) be issued for quashing the Office Order
No.21 dated 3.2.2011 issued under the signature of Special Secretary
to the Government, Department of Rural Development, Government of
Jharkhand, as find contained in Annexure-2 whereby it was decided
that there was no justification in giving status of government servant
to the Lady Extension Officers (for short hereinafter referred to as
"LEOs") working at Block level under the different District Rural
Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as "DRDA" in short);
(b) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other
appropriate writ / direction / order be issued commanding the
respondent-authorities to extend the same treatment to the petitioners
as has been given to similarly situated LEOs by the Government of
Bihar through Department of Rural Development vide its decision
contained in Memo No. 6479 dated 27.7.09 issued under the signature
of the Principal Secretary to the Government, as find Contained in
Annexure-1;
(c) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / direction(s) and/or
order(s) commanding the respondent-authorities to frame appropriate
rules for controlling the cadre of LEOs as has been done in the case of
similarly situated LEOs who were appointed together with the
petitioners, but were appointed together with the petitioners, but were
allotted Bihar as a result of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000.
(d) For quashing the Letter No. 5686 dated 02.11.2015 and Letter
No. 5182 dated 31.08.2013, whereby and whereunder by virtue of
Letter No. 5089 dated 26.08.2013 issued by Rural Development
Department, the A.C.P and M.A.C.P granted to the Lady Extension
Officers such as petitioner has been directed to be withdrawn within
15 days from the date of issue of the letter dated 02.11.2015.
(e) For quashing of the resolution contained in Memo No. 1845
dated 16.05.2018 issued under the signature of the Principal
Secretary, Rural Development Department whereby and whereunder
though considering the post of Lady Extension Officer on which the
petitioners had been working to be sanctioned, but has been declined
to regularize and absorb the petitioner as government servant in
permanency and has declined to extend equitable benefits and
pensionary dues to the petitioners.
W.P. (S) No. 6813 of 2013
(a) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
illegal order passed by the respondent vide No.21 dated 03.02.2011
followed by Letter No.3257 dated 15.06.2011 and 698/DRDA dated
16.07.2011, whereby the family pension has been stopped as because
the post of the petitioner's wife (died in harness) was not a govt. post
and has also been asked to deposit the entire family pension amount
received by the petitioner till date.
(b) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding
upon the respondent to explain before this Hon'ble Court as to why,
the post of Lady Extension Officer, has been treated as govt. posts,
been suddenly started treating it as non govt. post/post of autonomous
body, although there are several order of this Hon'ble Court and
Hon'ble Patna High Court directing the govt. to take policy decision
in the cases of the petitioner's wife and several others.
(c) For issuance of direction upon the respondent to give the
benefit of equal pay for equal work to that, of Extension Officers as it
was sanctioned by the then State of Bihar, for the same function.
W.P. (S) No. 3417 of 2015
(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction,
particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office
Order No. 21 dated 3.2.2011 issued under the signature of Special
Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand
whereby and whereunder decision has been taken not to give the
status of government servant to the working Lady Extension Officers.
(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction,
particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to give equal status to the petitioner, who is working as
Lady Extension Officer, at par with the other government employees
and to release all consequential benefits at par with the regular
government employees alongwith interest.
W.P. (S) No. 42 of 2016
(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction,
including the writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Letter
No. 5182 dated 31.08.2013 (Annexure-9/1) wherein it has been
communicated by the Rural Development Department that the Lady
Extension Officers including the petitioners are not entitled for the
benefit of ACP and MACP and subsequently for quashing the Letter
No. 5686(Anu.) dated 02.11.2015 contained in Memo No. 5686 dated
03.11.2015 (Annexure-9) under the signature of Special Secretary,
whereby and whereunder the Department of Rural Development,
Government of Jharkhand has been pleased to direct the Deputy
Development Commissioners of different districts to comply with the
direction contained in Departmental Letter No.5182 dated
31.08.2013, cancelling the benefits of ACP and MACP granted to the
Lady Extension Officers including petitioners;
(b) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction
including writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order
contained in Memo No. 1937/G Gra.V.Abhi dated 27.11.2015
(Annexure-10) issued under the signature of Deputy Development
Commissioner, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the benefits of ACP
extended to the petitioners has been cancelled with immediate effect
and the Establishment Assistant (Bill Clerk) has been directed to
initiate process for recovery of benefit extended under ACP and
MACP;
(c) For issuance of further writ, order or direction including writ
in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter bearing No.6622
dated 21.12.2015(Annexure-12), whereby and whereunder the
representation submitted by the petitioners has been impliedly
rejected and the Deputy Development Commissioner has been
directed to take action in terms of the earlier order contained in
Departmental Letter No. 5686 dated 02.11.2015 and further it is made
clear that if due to delay in compliance of departmental direction, the
petitioners obtain an order of status quo from this Hon'ble High
Court, the Deputy Development Commissioner shall be liable for the
same;
(d) For issuance of further writ, order or direction declaring that
since the petitioners, being Lady Extension Officers, are Government
Employees are entitled to the benefits of ACP / MACP, as has been
rightly extended to them from time to time;
(e) Issuance of an appropriate writ / order / direction for quashing
the letter contained in Memo No. 01-39 (DRDA/2010/52980 Gr.Vi,
Ranchi dated 18.10.2017 (Annexure-13/A), whereby and whereunder
a decision has been taken in view of Clause 10 of Memo No. 217 dated
18.01.2017 of the Finance Department that the Lady Extension
Officers will not be entitled for the 7th Pay Revision;
(f) Upon quashing of aforesaid letter, a further writ, order or
direction be issued directing the respondents to consequently fix the
pay scale and release salary accordingly;
(g) During the pendency of this writ petition, operation of
impugned circular contained in Memo no. 01-39 (DRDA/2010/52980
Gr.Vi, Ranchi, dated 18.10.2017 (Annexure-13/A) may be ordered to
be stayed;
W.P. (S) No. 418 of 2016
(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s)
particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office
Order No. 21 dated 3.2.2011(Annexure-9), issued under the signature
of Special Secretary, Rural Development, Govt. of Jharkhand whereby
and whereunder decision has been taken not to give the status of
Government servant to the working Lady Extension Officers.
(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s),
particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding upon the
respondents to give the equal status to the petitioner, who are working
as Lady Extension officers, at par with the other Government
Employees and to release all consequential benefits at par with the
regular government employees along with interest.
(c) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs or order/orders or
direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter
dated 12/12/15 vide No.2280 (Annexure-14) issued by the Respondent
No.8, being the District Development Commissioner-cum-Managing
Director, District Rural Development Agency, Hazaribagh whereby
and where under Respondent No.8 has been directed to account
section District Rural Development Agency, Hazaribagh to
recalculate the salary of the petitioner with other Lady Extension
Officers, thereafter put up proposal for recovery of excess payment
earlier.
(d) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for payment of
salary, which is held since June 2015, without any reason and to the
pay interest upon the salary.
(e) For any other appropriate relief or relief(s) as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit & proper in the light of the facts of this case.
W.P. (S) No. 1352 of 2016
(a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ for quashing the order of the Rural Development
Department, Government of Jharkhand, contained in Letter No. 1-
12(DRDA)/2013/6407 dated 11.12.2015 issued under the signature of
the Respondent No. 3 addressed to the Respondent No. 6 (Annexure-
6), by which the said respondent has informed that the benefits of
ACP/MACP cannot be extended to the employees of District Rural
Development Agency ('DRDA' in short);
(b) For issuance of further writ in the nature of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
order of the Respondent No.4 addressed to the Respondent No. 5
contained in Letter No.133 dated 11.2.2016 (Annexure-7); whereby
and whereunder the said respondent has communicated the decision
of the State Government and has set aside the order granting the
benefits of ACP/MACP with immediate effect;
(c) For issuance of a further appropriate writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding upon respondents not to give effect to the
order/Letter No. 6407 dated 11.12.2015 of the Respondent No.3
(Annexure-6) and the consequential order contained in Letter dated
11.2.2016 of the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-7);
W.P. (S) No. 2838 of 2016
(a) For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or
direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing
the Office Order No.21 dated 3.2.2011 (Annexure-9) issued under the
signature of Special Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand whereby and where under decision has
been taken not to give the status of Government servant to the working
Lady Extension Officers.
(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s)
particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to give equal status to the petitioner, who is working as
Lady Extension Officer at par with the other Government Employees
and to release all consequential benefits at par with the regular
government employees along with interest.
W.P.(S) No. 2763 of 2017
(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions, or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing
the order contained in Memo No.21 dated 03.02.2011 (Annexure-11)
passed by the respondent authorities whereby and whereunder the
present petitioners have been declared to be a Non-State Govt.
employees, as the petitioners were appointed on duly sanctioned post
under the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA);
(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions, or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing
the order dated 31.08.2013, contained in Letter No. 5182 (Annexure-
12) wherein an order has been passed whereby and wherein it has
been ordered that the present petitioners working on the post of Lady
Extension Officers will not be paid ACP and MACP benefits;
(c) For further quashing the order contained in Memo No. 01-
39(DRDA)-2010/5298 Ranchi Dated 18.10.2017 (Annexure-16) issued
by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt., Rural Development Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand whereby and where under it is held that the Lady
Extension Officer working under the District Rural Development
Agency and working under the different Blocks are not the State Govt.
Employees and therefore, the Circular of the Finance Department
vide Memo No. 217 dated 18.01.2017 is not applicable, as the services
of the petitioners has been treated on contract basis, as per the
Circular of the 7th Pay Revision.
(d) Petitioners further pray for quashing of the Resolution No.
01(DRDA)/2011/1845 dated 16.05.2018 (Annexure-26) issued by the
Government, issued by the Rural Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, which is issued during the pendency of the present writ
application and also as per the direction of this Hon'ble court,
directing the respondents, in the facts & circumstances of this case;
And/Or
For declaring that since the petitioners being Lady Extension
Officers are Govt. Employees are entitled to benefits of ACP/MACP as
has been rightly extended to them from time to time.
W.P.(S) No.6508 of 2017
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s)
particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office
Order No.21 dt. 03/02/2011(Annexure-12) issued under the signature
of Special Secretary, Rural Development Department Govt. of
Jharkhand whereby and whereunder decision has been taken not to
give the status of Government Servant to the working Lady Extension
Officer.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s)
particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to regularize service and give equal status to the
petitioner as govt. servant, who is working as Lady Extension Officer
as per with the other govt. Employees and to release all consequential
benefits alongwith interest.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s)
particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
letter/order dt. 18.10.2017 bearing No. 5298 issued by the Respondent
No. 6 being under Secretary, Rural Development Department to all
Deputy Commissioner / District Development Commissioner, State of
Jharkhand whereby and whereunder a decision has taken not to give
the benefit of Seventh Pay revised Scale to Lady Extension Officer on
the basis of Para-10 of the Resolution Memo No. 217 dt. 18.01.2017
which was published in Jharkhand Gazette as No. 123 dt. 18.01.2017
of the Planning-cum-Finance Department (Financial Department).
(iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s)
particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Letter
No. 5280 dt. 17.10.2017 issued by the Under Secretary, Rural
Development Department, State of Jharkhand to all District
Development Commissioner, whereby and whereunder directed to
send a fresh proposal for payment of salary of Lady Extension
Officers as per enclosed Performa on the basis of 6th Pay Revision till
06.11.2017.
(v) For issuance of the writ in the nature of certiorari upon the
respondents to forthwith pay the salary as paying alongwith statutory
interest without any interference, as the same has been illegally and
arbitrary withheld by the respondents.
(vi) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s)
particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the
respondent for quashing Resolution dt. 16.05.18 issued under the
signature of Principal Secretary, State of Jharkhand, whereby and
whereunder the service condition of the Lady Extension Officer has
been defined in the light of the previous Resolution No. 21 dt. 3.2.11.
W.P.(S) No. 6666 of 2017
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s)
for quashing of the letter contained in Memo No. 5298 dated
18.10.2017 (Annexure-10) issued under the signature of respondent-
Deputy Secretary whereby and whereunder it has been decided that
the benefits of 7th Pay Revision shall not be payable to the Lady
Extension Officers working in the State of Jharkhand on the ground
that the benefits of 7th Pay Revision shall only be payable to the
Government Employees/servants.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s)
commanding upon the respondent authorities to allow the benefits of
replacement scale under 7th Pay Revision to the petitioners.
W.P.(S) No. 433 of 2020
(A) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s)
particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office
Orders No. 21 dt. 3.2.2011 (Annexure-11) issued under the Signature
of Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand whereby and whereunder decision has been taken not to
give the status of government servant to the working Lay Extension
Officer working under Rural Development Department, State of
Jharkhand.
(B) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s)
particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the
respondents for quashing Resolution dt. 16.5.18 (Annexure-15) issued
under the signature of Principal Secretary, State of Jharkhand
whereby and whereunder the service condition has been defined in the
light of the previous Resolution No.21 dt. 3.2.11.
(C) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s)
particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Letter
No. 5298 dt. 18.10.17 (Annexure-12) issued by the respondent being
Deputy Secretary, Rural Development to all the Deputy Commissioner
/ District Development Commissioner, State of Jharkhand whereby
and whereunder a decision has been taken not to give the benefit of
seventh pay revised scale to Lady Extension Officer on the basis of
Para-10 of the Resolution Memo No. 217 dt. 18.1.17 which was
published in Jharkhand Gazette as no 13 dt. 18.1.17 of the Planning-
cum-Finance Department.
(D) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s)
particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the
respondents to confirm and regularize her services and give equal
status to the petitioner as government servant, who were working as
Lady Extension Officer with the other government employees and to
release pension and all retirement consequential benefits alongwith
interest.
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners
3. Learned counsels for the petitioners referred to letter dated
15.01.1988 (Page-13 of the convenience compilation) and submitted
that the post of Lady Extension Officer was sanctioned post by the
State Government in the Block Establishment and not a sanctioned
post in District Rural Development Authority. He also submitted that
in this letter, it was clearly mentioned that the petitioners will not be
treated as working on Deputation in DRDA and the posting of the
petitioners in DRDA was only for the purposes of successful
implementation of the programmes which were being implemented
through DRDA. The learned counsel submitted that this letter clearly
establishes that the petitioners were working against the sanctioned
posts of the State Government. However, the said posts were
sanctioned only for a short period.
4. He also submitted that the advertisement for the appointment of
Lady Extension Officer was issued by the concerned Divisional
Commissioner and the appointment letters were issued under the
signature of the Deputy Commissioner upon the recommendation of
the concerned Divisional Commissioner. The letter of appointment is
on record and it is at Page No. 14 of the convenience compilation. He
submitted that the letter of appointment itself indicates that the only
the control of the petitioners was by DRDA, but they were appointed
against sanctioned government post in Block Establishment. He
submitted that the letter dated 15.01.1988 was subsequently
withdrawn by the then State of Bihar by another letter dated
03.06.1998 (Page 24 of the convenience compilation) and such
withdrawal was with immediate effect. He submitted that by this
letter, the earlier status given to the petitioners i.e. government
servant, was withdrawn and the Lady Extension Officers were to be
treated at par with other extension officers in the Block. In order to
mention about the other extension officers, the learned counsel
referred to Page No. 3 of the convenience compilation and submitted
that the other officers were village level workers, extension officer for
credit, industry, women programmes and progress assistant.
5. He also submitted that the letter dated 03.06.1998 was
challenged in CWJC No. 5577 of 1998 in which an interim order
dated 15.09.1998 was passed and it was clearly mentioned in the
interim order that the question as to whether the services of the
petitioners have been rightly considered to be under District Rural
Development Agency will be considered while disposing of the writ
petition and the arrangement made through interim order was without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. He submitted
that an arrangement was made through the interim order that the
petitioners shall be paid their salary and allowances as they were being
paid in the past notwithstanding the letter dated 3rd of June, 1998.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the
Communication of the Government of India dated 15th of April, 1999
(Page-27 of the convenience compilation) to submit that a decision
was taken by the Government of India to phase out the scheme under
which the petitioners were working, but in spite of such decision, the
State Government continued to take work from the petitioners and it is
not the case of the respondents that the work which the petitioners
were discharging was no longer required. Rather the petitioners
continued to work and some of the petitioners have also attained the
age of superannuation.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ
petition being CWJC No. 5577 of 1998, which was initially filed at
Patna, was dismissed for default because of the fact that after
bifurcation of the State, the Government of Bihar had taken a decision
to regularize the services of Lady Extension Officers.
8. However, subsequently by virtue of order passed by this Court
in CWJC No. 2028 of 1998 (R) dated 20.09.2006, a direction was
issued to the respondents to take a policy decision as to whether Lady
Extension Officer is a Government Servant or not and after taking
such decision, they will also take a decision as to whether the services
of Lady Extension Officers are required or not.
9. He submitted that pursuant to such direction a fresh decision
was taken by the impugned order dated 03.02.2011 and it was decided
that the Lady Extension Officer cannot be granted the status of a
government servant. He submitted that the aforesaid letter dated
03.06.1998 which was subject matter of writ petition in CWJC No.
5577 of 1998 has also been considered and by the time, the impugned
order dated 03.02.2011 was passed, the writ petition at Patna was
pending which was dismissed for default only on 05.12.2012.
10. The learned counsel submitted that accordingly the entire
subject matter of the present case is based upon the letter dated
03.02.2011 denying the status of government servant to the
petitioners.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the letter dated
05.05.2010 which has been found in the records of W.P. (S) No. 1227
of 2011 in the Supplementary Affidavit of the petitioners to the
Counter Affidavit of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of the said case and
the affidavit is dated 24.08.2015 (Annexure-19 at Page-21) and he
submitted that this letter has been referred to in the impugned order.
He submitted that this letter is required to be considered by this Court
in view of the fact that in spite of the then State of Bihar having taken
a decision not to treat lady extension officer as Government Servant,
the initial appointment of the petitioners which was made in the year
1988 against sanctioned government post was extended from time to
time and the petitioners have been working by virtue of the extension
letters issued by the State of Jharkhand from time to time.
12. The learned counsel submitted that the initial appointment letter
having been extended from time to time, it is not open for the
respondents to say that the petitioners are not government servant and
that the petitioners are not working against the sanctioned post of the
State Government and therefore, the impugned order declaring that the
petitioners cannot be granted the status of government servant is
perverse and calls for interference. Learned counsel also submitted
that in the letter dated 05.05.2010, there is a schedule giving the list of
sanctioned post against Lady Extension Officer.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Annnexure-7 in
the amended writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2763 of 2017 and
submitted that the Annexure-7 dated 15.02.2006 is a decision of the
Finance Department of the State of Jharkhand. He submitted that the
matter regarding payment to Lady Extension Officer was subject
matter of consideration in the Fitment Committee and at that stage, an
objection was taken by the State that the petitioners cannot be entitled
to any central pay scale and thereafter subject matter of consideration
by the appellate committee and it was observed that such post does not
exist in the Centre and the pre-revised scale in the Union Territory
was much lower. In such circumstances, decision was taken to provide
the replacement scale of Rs. 5000-8000. The learned counsel
submitted that not only the petitioners have been working against the
sanctioned post of the State, but they were also given the salary as per
pay scale which was subject matter of scrutiny by the Fitment
Committee as well as the pay revision committee from time to time.
Learned counsel also submitted that the very fact that the pay scale of
the Lady Extension Officer was placed before the Fitment Committee
for consideration itself indicates that the petitioners are government
servants and were always treated to be government servant.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondents
14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State
Mrs. Vandana Singh submitted that the appointment of the petitioners
was never against sanctioned post. She submitted that the basic
requirement for a sanctioned post is that it should be of a permanent
nature and the salary, etc. should be directly paid by the State
Government. She submitted that on the face of the letter dated 11 th
May, 1983, the post was of temporary nature and it was sanctioned
only till 31.03.1985. She submitted that the said post was created in
view of the background of the scheme for implementation of the
"Integrated Rural Development Program" (IRDP) sponsored by the
Central Government on 50-50 partnership basis with the State
Government and the agency for the implementation was District Rural
Development Agency. She also submitted that District Rural
Development Agency is a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. She also submitted that the records reveal that
the salary to the petitioners were paid from time to time by District
Rural Development Agency, though the fund for the same was made
available by the State. Such fund was not made available under the
relevant budgetary allocation, out of which, the salary of State
Government employees is paid. She further referred to the letter dated
15th of January, 1988 and submitted that the same merely indicates
that the petitioners would be entitled to same benefit, as was available
to the other government servants under the then State of Bihar. She
submitted that such letter was required to be issued, in view of the fact
that otherwise the petitioners would not have been made entitled to
similar benefits as that of the State government employees. She
submitted that merely because some benefit, which was being given to
the State government employees, was extended to the petitioners, the
same by itself is not sufficient to conclude that the petitioners were
State government employees. She also submitted that the subsequent
letter dated 03.06.1998, withdrawn with immediate effect, has no
bearing in the matter, in view of the fact that the petitioners were
never appointed against any vacant sanctioned post. Through the letter
dated 03.06.1998, the benefits extended to the Lady Extension Officer
vide letter dated 15th of January 1988, were simplicitor withdrawn.
15. She further submitted that the petitioners at the first instance
had challenged the letter dated 3rd of June 1998, in writ petition being
C.W.J.C. No.6042 of 1998 with other analogous cases, and thereafter,
they continued to work by virtue of the interim orders passed by
Hon'ble Patna High Court and ultimately, the said writ petition was
dismissed for non-prosecution. She submitted that the principle is well
settled that all interim orders merge with the final order. Therefore,
even if the petitioners were continued by various orders issued by the
State Government, the same has no bearing in the present case. She
submitted that ultimately, the policy decision in regard to the status of
the petitioners was taken only in the year 2011 and consequential
benefit was also decided subsequently vide impugned decision of the
year 2018. She submitted that both these decisions were taken by
virtue of the orders/directions issued by this Court in different writ
petitions.
16. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners have
relied upon certain decisions of the State of Bihar, but those decisions
have no bearing in the case, as the policy decision taken by State of
Bihar has no relevance and is not binding on the policy decision taken
by the State of Jharkhand. She also submitted that the policy
decisions, which are impugned in the present case, are supported by
reasons and the scope of interference in the matter of policy of the
State Government is very limited. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents also relied upon the Circular dated
30.09.1988 issued by the State of Bihar and submitted that the post
was created by DRDA. Learned counsel for the respondent-State
submitted that the benefit of ACP, MACP, etc. has been given by the
DRDA and not by the State government, but subsequently, the same
has been withdrawn by the State Government.
17. The learned counsel for the respondent-State relied upon the
following judgments:
(1996) 1 SCC 773 (State of H.P. Vs. Ashwani Kumar & Ors) Para-4
(1996) 7 SCC 34 (State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. U.P. Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh and Anr.) Para-3
(1999) 2 SCC 317 (Rajendra and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and
Ors.) Para-13
(2002) 10 SCC 656 (Dhyan Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana
and Ors.) Para-1
(2022) 4 SCC 193 (State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Bhagwan and
Ors.) Para-26 & 28
Arguments on behalf of the Accountant General
18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General
in W.P.(S) No. 6813 of 2013 submitted that the various provisions of
Bihar Pension Rules are required to reconsidered. He referred to Rule-
9 which defines sub-cadre. He further referred to Rules- 58, 61, 71, 74
76 and 203 of the Pension Rules and also referred to Article 266 of the
Constitution of India dealing with consolidated fund of India. He
submitted that general revenue has also been defined under the
Jharkhand Pension Rules. The learned counsel submitted that in order
to get pension, all the three conditions as provided under Rule 58 are
required to be satisfied. According to the counsel, the second and third
conditions are not satisfied in the present case. He also submitted that
the State Government has got the power to deal with exceptional
circumstances in terms of Rule 59 and Rule 203 of the Jharkhand
Pension Rules, even if a case is not covered by Rule 58 and if a person
does not satisfy all the three conditions for getting pension in terms of
Rule 58. Therefore, he submitted that on the facts of the present case,
the petitioners do not satisfy all the conditions of Rule 58.
19. The learned counsel also submitted that at one point of time, the
pension was also sanctioned and was being paid, but when the State
Government communicated to the Office of Accountant General that
the conditions of Rule 58 are not satisfied, the office of Accountant
General stopped further payment of pension. He also submitted that
Rule 74 onwards deals with the 3rd condition and various categories
have been mentioned, which do not qualify as service paid by
government and therefore, the third condition of Rule 58 is also not
satisfied.
20. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs.
Rakesh Kumar (2001) 4 SCC 309.
21. The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by
the Supreme Court reported in (2002) 3 SCC 566: AIR 2002 SC 1258
(State of Bihar -Vs- S.A. Hassan and Anr.), Para-12 and 13 and
submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that all the
three conditions of Rule 58 are required to be satisfied in order to
grant pension. He also relied upon a judgment passed by the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Bhola Nath Hansda @ Bhola
Hansda Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2017) SCC Online
Jharkhand 1387. The learned counsel further submitted that the
statutory provisions for pensionable service having not been satisfied,
any act or omission on behalf of the respondents will not create any
right in favour of the petitioners and hardship cannot be a ground to
grant/continue pension. However, during the course of hearing, the
learned counsel fairly submitted that the facts which have been argued
by the learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to the letter of
appointment and other aspects of the matter do not appear to have
been considered by the State while passing the impugned orders.
Rejoinder arguments on behalf of the petitioners
22. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in response, submitted that
the creation of post by the government for the DRDA vide letter dated
30.09.1988 does not include the Lady Extension Officer, though it
includes the Extension Officer for Industry and Commerce and the
said letter has been issued after the appointment of the petitioners.
While distinguishing the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in (1999) 2 SCC 317 (supra), learned counsel for the
petitioners also relied upon Para-13 thereof and submitted that in the
said case, the posts were abolished and no rights stood crystallized in
favour of the petitioner of the said case, but here the posts continued
till the superannuation of the petitioners and some of the petitioners
are still working.
23. Learned counsel also submitted that other judgments which
have been relied upon by the petitioners are primarily related to claim
for regularization. He submitted that the petitioners are not claiming
any regularization, but the petitioners are claiming their status which
were given to them at the time of their appointment.
24. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Rules- 16,
29, 31, 40 and 58 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules and also the Circular
issued by the State Government dated 12.08.1969. The entire scheme
has been considered in the aforesaid judgment reported in (2020) 12
SCC 131 (Parmeshwar Nanda and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and
Ors.) Para- 8 to 13. He also relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in 1995 SCC Online Patna 188
(Nikhil Krishna Aikat Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and referred to
Para-14 onwards to submit that the said Circular dated 12.08.1969 has
also been considered by this Court. The learned counsel also relied
upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
(2020) 8 SCC 106 (V. Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerela and Ors.) para-
19 to submit that the provision relating to pensionary benefits are
required to be liberally construed. He also submitted that the
petitioners have worked right from the year 1988 and they have been
allowed work till the age of superannuation. Their services were never
discontinued, nor the terms and conditions of their employment were
modified. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment reported
in (1984) 3 SCC 281 (Ex.-Capt. K.C. Arora and Anr. Vs. State of
Haryana and Ors.). He referred to Para- 22 and 23 of the said
judgment to submit that the respondents are estopped from treating the
petitioners differently from what they were treated at the time of their
appointment and continued without any interruption.
25. The learned counsel also submitted that certain service benefits
in the form of ACP, MACP, Revision of Pay, etc. were given to the
petitioners and the petitioners were always treated as government
employees and by the impugned action of the respondents, not only
the same has been taken away, but an order of recovery has also been
passed, which are also subject matter of consideration before this
Court. He also submitted that there is no allegation of fraud or
misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners and without prejudice
to the submissions made by the petitioners regarding their status as
government servant, the order of recovery cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law. He referred to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
Facts of the cases
26. Primarily, the petitioners are seeking following reliefs:
(a) For quashing the Office Order No.21 dated 03.02.2011 whereby
it has been decided that there is no justification in giving Government
servant status to Lady Extension Officers working at Block level.
(b) For granting the same status to petitioners as has been granted
to similarly situated LEO's by the Government of Bihar.
(c) For framing appropriate rules for controlling the cadre of LEO's
in Jharkhand as has been done in Bihar.
(d) For quashing the Resolution dated 16.05.2018 whereby the
petitioners' claim for regularization and absorption as government
servant has been declined.
27. Written submissions have been filed with list of dates and with
regard to submission and documents relied upon by the petitioners in
relation to sanction and creation of permanent post of Lady Extension
Officer and the appointment of the petitioners on the said post through
procedure established under law. The following list of dates has been
furnished:
27.02.1981 Ministry of Rural Reconstruction, Govt. of India vide
Memo No. Letter dated 27.02.1981 directed for creation of
11012/7/80- certain posts to strengthen the administration at
IRD-III Block Level. Every block was to have 8 extension
officers including one for women & children i.e.
Lady Extension Officer.
11.05.1983 Pursuant thereto, Govt. of Bihar periodically created
Memo No. posts of Extension Officer (Industry & Commerce)
4452 and LEO's for successful implementation of
integrated Rural Development Programme.
29.12.1983 Govt. of Bihar vide Letter dated 29.12.1983 notified
Memo No. that selection was to be done by a Committee headed
12294 by Divisional Commissioner where-after the select
list was to be handed over to the Deputy
Commissioners of concerned districts.
31.07.1984 Vide letter dated 31.07.1984, it was clarified that the
Memo No. salary and allowances of LEO's were the same as
8096 non-gazetted employees at Block level.
10.04.1987 Vide letter dated 10.04.1987, Rural Development
Memo No. Dept, Govt. of Bihar stated that LEOs are working on
3401 govt. sanctioned posts at Block level and are not the
employees of DRDA.
22.05.1987 Advertisement published for appointment on the post
of LEO's.
15.01.1988 Project Director, Deptt. of Rural Development
Memo No. intimated the Managing Director, DRDA that LEO's
645 are working on sanctioned govt. posts and only the
payment of salary is to be done through DRDA.
14.06.1988 The petitioners were appointed as LEO's on the basis
of a selection process vide Letter No. 450 dated
14.06.1988.
Annexure-2 Appointment letters stated that these were sanctioned
(Series) to government posts and all admissible facilities
Suppl. Affid. available to government servants would be
admissible to them and payments would be made
through Agency i.e. DRDA.
30.09.1988 Rural Development Deptt. clarified the number of
M. No. 2121 posts created under DRDA which did not include the
LEO's.
23.07.1993 Rural Development Department again clarified that
M. No. 6050 LEO's are govt. sanctioned posts.
03.06.1998 The Rural Development Dept. held that the effect of
Memo No. letter dated 15.01.1988 be deleted with immediate
4585 effect and consequently the post of LEO's would be
under DRDA and would be guided by the regulations
of the Agency.
15.09.1998 The said direction of treating LEO's as employees of
I.A. No. DRDA was challenged vide I.A. No. 7639/1998 in
7639/1988 CWJC No. 5577/1998 before Hon'ble Patna High
Court which was allowed vide order dated
15.09.1998 directing that the petitioners be paid their
salary as was being done before, notwithstanding the
Letter dated 03.06.1998.
01.04.1999 Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP)
merged with Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar
Yojana (SGSY) w.e.f. 01.04.1999.
15.04.1999 Central Govt. accepted the recommendation of
Memo No. Shankar Committee stating that DRDA should not
17011/2/99- have any permanent staff and State Rural
IRD-III Development Dept. should immediately take up 3-5
years plan for absorption of the staff currently borne
on DRDA.
15.11.2000 Upon reorganization of the unified State of Bihar,
194 posts of LEO's came in the share of Jharkhand,
of which 127 remained functional. Petitioners were
allocated the cadre of Jharkhand.
14.08.2002 Finance Department, Jharkhand issued Notification
Memo No. for grant of benefits of A.C.P. upon completion of
5207 12/24 years of service.
07.09.2005 The Government of Jharkhand had admitted that for
Memo No. successful implementation of DRDA, post had been
4916 created at District and Block Level, however, the
staffing pattern has to be revised. It was further
decided that there shall be no further employment,
however, the employees of the DRDA would be
adjusted by the Government within three to five
years. The said decision has the approval of the
Cabinet.
20.09.2006 Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in CWJC No.
2028/1998(R) directed the State govt. to take policy
decision regarding the fate of LEO's.
22.02.2007 Successor State of Bihar in light of the direction of
Memo No. the Hon'ble Patna High Court passed in CWJC No.
1624 6543/91 and analogous cases, adjusted the LEO's
under the Department of Rural Development in
various blocks, thus giving them the status of govt.
employees. And the posts were to be ended with their
superannuation.
06.02.2008 Several CWJC petitions were filed by LEO's
regarding their change in service conditions in Bihar
and the Hon'ble Patna High Court vide order dt.
06.02.2008 passed in CWJC No. 5577/1998 and
analogous cases stated that since the service
conditions of LEOs is kept pending for consideration,
the Respondent State had to maintain status quo.
05.12.2008 Govt. of Bihar framed Lady Extension Officer Cadre
No. 15735 Rules, 2008 notified on 05.12.2008.
27.07.2009 Govt. of Bihar notified that the LEO's would be
M. No. 6479 treated as govt. servants since the very inception i.e.
since the day they gave their joining at DRDA.
03.02.2011 Whereas, successor State of Jharkhand vide office
Memo No. order no.21 dated 03.02.2011 decided that there was
21 no justification in giving status of govt. servant to
LEO's.
25.02.2016 Department took a decision to cancel the benefits of
Memo No. sanctioned ACP/MACP to the LEOs in Jharkhand,
1117 however, vide letter dated 25.02.2016, decided not to
take coercive steps for recovery of the amount.
18.10.2017 Department took a decision vide letter dated
Memo No. 18.10.2017 regarding non-entitlement of benefits of
5298 7th Pay Revision to LEOs.
08.11.2017 Interim orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in
14.12.2017 relation to 7th Pay Revision.
16.05.2018 Respondent State came up with the Resolution dated
Memo No. 16.05.2018 whereby the benefits of ACP, MACP,
1845 Retirement benefits, leave encashment etc. which are
available to govt. employees has been denied to the
Petitioners and it has been decided that their services
would be extended year wise till they attained 60
years.
28. Submissions of the petitioners in short are:
(i) The post of Lady Extension Officer with pay scale was
sanctioned by the then Department of Rural Reconstruction and
Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar.
(ii) The creation of post had the approval of the Finance
Department and accordingly funds for the same had to be
released through Budgetary Head.
(iii) The Lady Extension Officers were appointed in pursuance to a
selection process conducted under the Divisional Commissioner
on the Government sanctioned posts.
(iv) The appointment letter also mentioned about the permanent and
sanctioned post on which they were appointed and ever since,
their appointment, they have been continuously discharging
their duties and were doing all the work allotted to them by the
BDO regarding law & order, election duty etc.
(v) It has also been admitted by the respondents that since
appointment till the issuance of Letter dated 03.06.1998, the
LEO's were also treated as Government Employee and they
have been getting annual increments, GPF, Pay Revision, Leave
etc.
(vi) The letter dated 03.06.1998 was challenged by the Association
in C.W.J.C. No. 5577 of 1998 and interim direction to the
extent that the petitioner shall be paid as they were being paid
was passed by the Hon'ble High Court.
(vii) Similarly situated LEOs who were appointed in the same
transaction, but were allotted to the State of Bihar were granted
the status of Government servants, but the petitioners were
discriminated against.
(viii) The Government of Jharkhand vide Resolution dated
07.09.2005 had taken decision to absorb and adjust the Lady
Extension Officers.
(ix) Thereafter, Office Order dated 03.02.2011 was issued by the
District Rural Development Department in pursuance to the
order dated 20.09.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2028 of
1998(R) wherein the respondent has taken a decision to not to
grant the status of Government Employee to the LEO's.
(x) The decision dated 03.02.2011 has been passed in ignorance of
the earlier decision of the Government, the interim order passed
by the Hon'ble Patna High Court and also the decision of the
Cabinet/Resolution dated 07.09.2005.
(xi) The Labour Extension Officers and the Village Level worker
who have also been appointed for strengthening the Block
Administration had been absorbed in permanency by the
Government and the LEO's have been discriminated in the
matter.
(xii) The order dated 16.05.2018 has been passed allowing the LEO's
to continue till 60 years by extending their service year-wise,
however, they have been deprived of the benefits of A.C.P.,
M.A.C.P. and payment of Gratuity, Pension and Leave
Encashment.
(xiii) The order dated 16.05.2018 has been passed denying equitable
benefits to the petitioners who had served for more than 30
years on the ground that their cases are distinguishable from the
Labour Extension Officer and Village Level Worker who had
been appointed through Bihar Sub-Ordinate Selection Board.
(xiv) The other ground taken in the Resolution dated 16.05.2018 with
respect to the post of Lady Extension Officer being temporary
in nature is contrary to the records and hence, the stand is non-
tenable in the eyes of law.
(xv) The petitioners had left other lucrative jobs to join this
sanctioned govt. post but after more than 30 years of continuous
service, they will superannuate without any retirement benefits.
29. Issues as pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioners are as follows:
(a) Whether the status of the petitioners who have been appointed
as Government Servant on sanctioned post can be changed
during the course of employment?
(b) Whether the status and service condition of a Government
Employee can be changed to his prejudice after about a decade
of employment as has been done vide order dated 03.06.1998?
(c) Whether the State being a Model Employer can retract from its
earlier stand and treat the petitioners as employees of DRDA
and not as State Employees?
(d) Whether the V.L.W. and Labour Extension Officers who had
been appointed for strengthening the administration at Block
Level have been given the status of Government Employees,
whereas the Lady Extension Officer, who had been doing all
the work allotted by the B.D.O., can be discriminated?
(e) Whether if the petitioners are getting Annual increments and
have been allowed the pay revision under 4th, 5th and 6th Pay
Revisiona, they may be treated to be employees of DRDA only
for the purposes of denial of benefits of M.A.C.P. and retiral
dues.
(f) Whether the lady extension officers can be treated different
from that of other extension officers (industry and commerce)
for whom decision for creation of post were taken through the
same process and in the same back ground merely because the
method of adopted for selection were different?
30. A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by
Respondent No.3 in compliance of the orders dated 23.12.2022,
20.01.2023 and 08.02.2023 passed by this Court wherein the
submissions of the respondent State have been summarized as follows:
(a) 587 posts of Lady Extension Officers were created at the block
level by different sanction orders for the execution of centrally
sponsored scheme, Integrated Rural Development Programme
(IRDP) as directed by letter dated 27.02.81. Initially the
establishment costs of these posts were met by Centre and State
in 50:50 proportions. As per letter dated 29.12.1983, Rural
Reconstruction and Panchayati Raj Department, Bihar, Patna,
the posts of Lady Extension Officer were temporary in nature
and have been created under IRDP scheme. Extension was
given from time to time to these posts.
(b) At the time of bifurcation of State, the status of Lady Extension
Officer was clearly mentioned in letter dated 03.06.1998 of
Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna which states that
Lady Extension Officers are employees of DRDA and therefore,
the facilities admissible to the employees of DRDA only are
admissible to them. Another letter dated 02.11.1998 of the same
Department states that DRDA is a registered autonomous body
under the Society Registration Act, 1860.
(c) Pursuant to order dated 20.09.2006 passed in CWJC No.2028 of
1998(R) by this Court, a policy decision regarding status of the
post of Lady Extension Officer has been taken by the
department vide Office Order No.21 dated 03.02.2011
(impugned) that the Lady Extension Officer are not government
servants. The said letter was challenged by some of the
employees wherein an interim order dated 17.08.2017 in
W.P.(S) No.1227 of 2011 was passed and in compliance of the
said order, a policy decision has been taken regarding the
service condition of Lady Extension Officer vide departmental
Letter No.1845 dated 16.05.2018 whereby their service
conditions have been fixed and in the light of the aforesaid
resolution, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.
(d) It has also been mentioned that the Extension Officer (Industry
and Commerce) and Statistical Investigator were selected by 1st
graduate level combined competitive exam held by Bihar Sub-
ordinate Service Selection board, which is not in respect of the
petitioners and whereby a distinction has been drawn between
the Extension Officer (Industry and Commerce) and Statistical
Investigator on one hand and that of Lady Extension Officer by
stating that Lady Extension Officer have been recruited by a
committee headed by a Divisional Commissioner and for this
applications were invited through Employment Exchange
Offices.
Findings of this Court
31. The records reveal that Ministry of Rural Re-construction,
Government of India vide Letter dated 27.02.1981 had directed for
creation of certain posts to strengthen the administration at Block
Level and every block was to have eight extension officers including
one of women and children i.e. Lady Extension Officer. Thus, the
communication dated 27.02.1981 relates to all Extension Officers
including that of Lady Extension Officer. Pursuant to such directions,
vide Memo dated 11.05.1983, the Government of Bihar periodically
created posts for Extension Officer (Industry and Commerce) and also
posts for Lady Extension Officers for implementation of integrated
Rural Development Programme. From perusal of Memo dated
29.12.1983, it appears that a conscious decision was taken by State
government that the selection of Lady Extension Officer is required to
be taken at the stage of Divisional Commissioners and the power be
delegated to the Divisional Commissioners and the Commissioner will
not himself appoint the Lady Extension Officer, but after selection
they may be sent for appointment by the district authority. The reasons
for such decision have also been mentioned in the letter dated
29.12.1983 wherein it has been observed that the selection was
required to be done through the Divisional Commissioners to ensure
proper representation of the women of the locality as Lady Extension
Officers.
32. In the said letter, a conscious decision was further taken that the
selection process will be taken up in terms of Circular No.398 dated
18.01.1986 and the heads of budget from which the payment was to be
made was also reflected. It was also indicated that the payment will be
made through the District Rural Development Authority (DRDA) and
the sum will be provided to them through the concerned blocks.
33. Vide another Letter dated 31.07.1984, it was clarified that the
salary and allowances of Lady Extension Officers were to be the same
as non-gazetted employees at Block level and the payment is to be
made through the Block. Another Letter dated 10.04.1987 was issued
by Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar stating that
Lady Extension Officers were working on government sanctioned post
at Block level and were not the employee of DRDA.
34. In the aforesaid background, the advertisement was published
on 22.05.1987. The appointment letter as referred to in the course of
argument is dated 02.07.1988 has been issued under the signature of
Deputy Commissioner - cum - Chairman, District Rural Development
Authority. It has been stated in the appointment letter that the
appointment was being made on temporary basis and the post is
government post in the Block and the appointees will be entitled to all
the benefits of the said post as the employees under State government
and they were appointed against sanctioned government post in the
Block establishment. The appointment letter also stipulates that the
benefits in terms of the departmental Letter No.645 dated 15.01.1988
would be available to Lady Extension Officers.
35. This Court finds that later on, a letter dated 03.06.1998 was
issued whereby the aforesaid Letter No.645 dated 15.01.1988 was
withdrawn with immediate effect and consequently, it was stipulated
therein that the Lady Extension Officers are employees of District
Rural Development Authority and they will not be entitled for benefits
of government servants. It is important to note here again that the
letter of appointment i.e. Memo No.605 dated 02.07.1988 reflects that
the benefits in terms of the departmental Letter No.645 dated
15.01.1988 would be available to Lady Extension Officers.
36. The letter dated 15.01.1988 has also been brought on record
which in turn refers to Letter No.3012 dated 28.12.1987 indicating
that the post of Lady Extension Officer is sanctioned post in the block
establishment and the service benefits of government employees will
be extended to them, to which, the respondents have submitted that the
said letter dated 15.01.1988 is not creating any post, but it is only
extending certain benefits of government servant to Lady Extension
Officer which has been subsequently withdrawn vide letter dated
03.06.1998.
37. However, the fact remains that at the time of appointment, the
appointment letter itself indicated that the Lady Extension Officers
will be entitled for the benefit of government servant in terms of the
letter dated 15.01.1988.
38. The letter dated 03.06.1988 was subject matter of challenge by
the association of Lady Extension Officers in C.W.J.C. No.5577 of
1998 wherein, with respect to the aforesaid letter dated 03.06.1998,
the question was framed as to whether the services of Lady Extension
Officer was rightly considered to be under the District Rural
Development Agency. It was observed that this issue will be
considered at the time of disposal of the writ petition. The interim
order was also passed directing the petitioners shall be paid their
salary and allowances as they were being paid in the past
notwithstanding the letter dated 03.06.1998. The interim order dated
15.09.1988 is quoted as under:
"I.A. No.7639 of 1998:
Heard counsel for the parties. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioners shall be
paid their salary and allowances, as they were being paid in the
past notwithstanding the letter dated 3rd June, 1998 (Annexure-1).
The question as to whether their services have been rightly
considered to be under the District Rural Development Agency will
be considered while disposing of the writ petition, and the present
arrangement is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of
the parties.
The interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly."
39. It further appears that after the creation of State of Jharkhand,
the said writ petition being C.W.J.C No.5577 of 1998 which was
pending at Patna was dismissed for default as apparently, the
grievance of the lady extension officers who remained in the newly
created State of Bihar, was redressed. As the grievance of the lady
extension officers in the State of Jharkhand were not redressed, certain
orders were passed by this Court consequently, the impugned orders
have been passed.
40. This Court finds that by the Cabinet decision dated 07.09.2005,
the Extension Officers and Statistical Investigators working at District
Rural Development Authority were recognized by the State of
Jharkhand as government employees and subsequently, vide order
dated 20.09.2006, this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2028 of 1998(R) directed
the State government to take a policy decision regarding the Lady
Extension Officers.
41. It appears from the records of this case that the decision to have
Extension Officers including Lady Extension Officers were taken
through common decisions. However, the mode of recruitment of
Lady Extension Officer and that of other Extension Officers were
provided differently by citing reasons in letter dated 29.12.1983, as
discussed above, which was with a view only to ensure that the local
women get selected as Lady Extension Officers and for that purpose
the selection process was to be conducted at the division by the
Divisional Commissioner.
42. The State of Jharkhand had taken a conscious decision dated
07.09.2005 to absorb the Extension Officer (Industry and Commerce)
and Statistical Investigator in the State government.
43. This Court finds that with regard to the nature of employment
of Extension Officers (Industry and Commerce) and Statistical
Investigators, a judgment has been passed by Hon'ble Patna High
Court in C.W.J.C. No.6467 of 2007 (Manju Kumari Vs. State of
Bihar) on 06.02.2008 by referring to the resolution of Rural
Development Department of the then State of Bihar contained in
Memo No.755 dated 20.01.1998 and also by referring to other
decisions of the State of Bihar after bifurcation and in the said
judgment, it has been held that the Extension Officers (Industries and
Commerce) and Statistical Investigators were employee of the State
Government from the date of their initial appointment and they are
entitled for all consequential benefits from the date of their initial
appointment in the similar manner as was made available to other
recommendees and appointees whose names were also recommended
by Bihar Public Service Commission / Subordinate Service Selection
Board for appointment in government service.
44. It is also important to note the Government of Bihar has
subsequently taken a decision dated 27.07.2009 that the Extension
Officer (Industry and Commerce) and Lady Extension Officer will be
treated as Government Servants right from the date of their joining.
Thus, the Lady Extension Officers and the other Extension Officers
were recognized to be having the status of government servant right
from the date of their appointment and such declaration was made by
Hon'ble Patna High Court with regard to Extension Officers (Industry
and Commerce) and Statistical Investigators that they were the
employees of State government from the date of their initial
appointment.
45. Thus, the all the Extension Officers who were appointed prior
to the creation of State of Jharkhand were treated to be having the
status of government servant right from their initial date of
appointment by the State of Bihar. But so far as State of Jharkhand is
concerned, with regard to Statistical Investigators and Extension
Officer (Industry and Commerce), a decision has been taken way back
in the year 2005 to absorb them in various departments and with
regard to the Lady Extension Officer, a decision has been taken
declaring them that they are not government servants vide impugned
order dated 03.02.2011 pursuant to order passed in C.W.J.C. No.2028
of 1998 (R) (Nisha Sinha Vs. State) dated 20.09.2006.
46. Upon perusal of the decision contained in the impugned order
dated 03.02.2011, this Court finds that the authorities have considered
the Memo dated 27.02.1981 issued by the Government of India and
have also recorded that the services of Lady Extension Officers were
extended from time to time and have referred to the budget heads
through which the payment was being made to Lady Extension
Officers. They have also referred to the decision of the Union of India
dated 01.04.1999 and consequently, the entire financial burden for
payment has come on the State Governmnet. The decision also refers
to the advertisement that the advertisement was for temporary post
and the Lady Extension Officers were appointed in Block
Establishment for Integrated Rural Development Programme and
other works. After referring to the various Circulars, the impugned
order dated 03.02.2011 suddenly refers to certain opinion received
from the consultant of Hon'ble Governor (Finance Department) and
referred to a direction therein that the Lady Extension Officers cannot
be declared as Government servant and on the basis of such direction,
a decision has been taken straightaway that the Lady Extension
Officer cannot be given the status of government servant.
47. This Court finds that the decision which has been taken as
contained in order dated 03.02.2011, is based on the directions issued
by the consultant (Finance Department) of the Hon'ble Governor, and
there has been no independent application of mind by the respondent
authority while passing the impugned order dated 03.02.2011 with
regard to the gamut of affairs and the background under which the
appointment of Lady Extension Officers was made. In the impugned
order dated 03.02.2011, there is only reference of the various
developments from time to time. This Court also finds that there is no
application of mind in connection with the manner in which the other
Extension Officer (Industry and Commerce) and Statistical
Investigator have been treated, although the decision to create the post
for appointment of Extension Officer (Industry and Commerce) and
Statistical Investigator was also taken in the same manner and at par
with that of the Lady Extension Officers. It was only at the stage of
recruitment, with a view to ensure participation of local women,
different mode of selection process was adopted for Lady Extension
Officers by taking a conscious decision as contained in Letter dated
29.12.1983.
48. This Court also finds that in the subsequent impugned order
dated 16.05.2018, the point regarding comparison between the Lady
Extension Officers and Extension Officer (Industry and Commerce)
and Statistical Investigator have been considered and a distinction has
been sought to be drawn only on the basis of the mode of selection by
stating that Extension Officer (Industry and Commerce) and Statistical
Investigator have been selected through Bihar Sub-ordinate Service
Selection Board by joint competitive exam, whereas the Lady
Extension Officers were appointed by the Divisional Commissioner
by calling for applications through the employment exchange.
49. This Court finds that while making the aforesaid distinction
between Lady Extension Officers and Extension Officer (Industry and
Commerce) and Statistical Investigator in the impugned order dated
16.05.2018, the authorities have failed to take note of the fact as to the
reason for adopting a separate selection process for Lady Extension
Officers i.e. by way of conscious decision as contained in letter dated
29.12.1983 in order to ensure participation of local women for
appointment as Lady Extension Officers.
50. This Court is of the prima facie view on the basis of materials
on record, that the creation of extension officers under different
categories had an identical background and merely because a different
selection process was adopted for Lady Extension Officer in view of
the peculiar requirement as reflected in letter dated 29.12.1983, no
distinction could have been drawn between the Lady Extension
Officers and other Extension Officer (Industry and Commerce) and
Statistical Investigator who were appointed by Bihar Sub-ordinate
Selection Board. This Court also finds that in the impugned order
dated 16.05.2018, a reference has been made to letter no. 12294 dated
29.12.1983, but the reason for having a different mode of selection for
Lady Extension Officer, has not been considered.
51. This Court is of the considered view that the points and issues
which have been raised by the petitioners for consideration before this
Court as mentioned above are required to be considered by the
respondents and the distinction which has been sought to be drawn
between the Lady Extension Officers and Extension Officer (Industry
and Commerce) and Statistical Investigator is also required to be
closely examined in the light of the various Circulars and
communications which have been relied upon by the petitioners. It is
also to be seen as to whether the lady extension officers have been put
to any disadvantageous position after their recruitment with respect to
their terms and conditions of appointment as reflected in their
appointment letter as discussed above.
52. It is also important to note that in order to enable the
respondents to take a decision, the impugned order dated 03.02.2011
whereby it has been held that the petitioners are not government
servant is required to be set-aside. The other impugned order dated
16.05.2018 holding that the Lady Extension Officers will not be
entitled for pension, gratuity, earned leave, D.A. and other allowances
and shall also not entitled for ACP and MACP and other benefits of
government employee, is also required to be set-aside and the matter
is required to be remitted back to the respondents to pass fresh order in
the light of the aforesaid observations after granting an opportunity of
hearing to one or two authorized representative of the petitioners.
53. It also appears from the records that the post of Lady Extension
Officer was of temporary nature and it was sanctioned only for a short
period, but the fact remains that the sanction of the post was extended
from time to time and the petitioners continued to work and most of
them have attained the age of superannuation. It is required to be
considered as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to the status
of temporary employees of the State government and what would be
the consequences of such a status.
54. It also appears that some of the lady extension officers were
also granted the benefits of ACP, MACP, etc. and have also been
granted the pensionary benefits and order of recovery has been passed
against them on the ground that they have been wrongly treated as
government servants. In case, it is again found that the petitioners are
not government servants and are not entitled to such benefits, it is also
required to be examined as to whether there could be an order of
recovery considering the nature of their job, hardships arising out of
order of recovery etc. and if the petitioners have acted in a bonafide
manner.
55. This Court finds that the impugned decisions with respect to the
status of Lady Extension Officer as to whether they are government
servant or not and the consequences flowing therefrom, are required to
be set-aside to enable the respondents to pass fresh order in
accordance with law.
56. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Ranchi, who has issued the impugned orders, is required to closely
scrutinize the background of the appointment of Extension Officer
(Industry and Commerce) and Statistical Investigators on one hand
and that of Lady Extension Officers on the other hand, taking into
consideration the conscious decision of the State government to take a
different mode of selection of Lady Extension Officers to ensure
better participation of local women and whether in this background,
different mode of selection of Lady Extension Officer could be reason
to treat Lady Extension Officers differently from other Extension
Officer (Industry and Commerce) and Statistical Investigator when the
mode and manner of creation of post of all extension officers appear
to be identical. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Ranchi should record a specific finding as to the status of
the employment of the lady extension officers and all consequences
arising therefrom.
57. Accordingly, the impugned Office Order No.21 dated
03.02.2011 as well as the impugned Letter No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018
both issued by the Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Ranchi are set-aside to the extent they have held that the
lady extension officers do not have the status of government servant
and consequently they are not entitled to other service benefits such as
ACP, MACP, pensionary benefits, etc. to enable the Principal
Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi to take a fresh
decision in accordance with law taking into consideration the issues
raised by the petitioners as recorded above and also in the light of the
observations made by this Court in this judgement.
58. The authorized one or two representatives of the petitioners
shall approach the Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Ranchi on 03.07.2023 by filing a detailed common
representation alongwith a copy of this order. Upon filing of such
representation, the Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Ranchi will look into the grievance of the petitioners and
fix a date of hearing and pass an appropriate reasoned order after
granting an opportunity of hearing to the authorized representative by
14.08.2023. The reasoned order be also communicated to the
petitioners through email as well as speed post at the address which
may be mentioned in the representation itself.
59. So far as the various judgments which has been relied upon by
the parties are concerned, they are not being specifically dealt with in
this judgment in view of the fact that fresh order is required to be
passed by the aforesaid authority who has to record findings on facts.
In such circumstances, it will be open to the authority to consider the
judgments which may be relied upon by the parties. If required, the
Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi may also
depute an Advocate from the government side for assistance who may
also be heard while passing the fresh order in terms of this judgement.
60. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these writ
petitions are disposed of.
61. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, are closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/Saurav
