Jharkhand High Court
Shiv Kumar Singh Age About 65 Years S/O ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 W.P. (S). No. 4007 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S ) No. 4007 of 2021
1. Shiv Kumar Singh age about 65 years S/O Late Chandra
Deep R/O Village -Bahasi P.O- Kadil Pur P.S- Jandaha-
District-Vaishali. Bihar.
2. Bedanand Singh age about 68 Years S/O Late Manohar
Singh R/O Flat No. 101, Trayambkeshwar Apartment
Enclave, Chasire Home Road, Bariyatu ,P.O+P.S-Bariyatu,
District- Ranchi.
3. Sachcha Prasad Singh age about 66 years S/O Late
Lakhan Singh R/O Village - Shakti Nagar, Hazipur, P.O -
Anjupur P.S- Vaishali(T), - District- Vaishali., Bihar.
4. Rajendra Singh age about 68 years S/O Late Ambika
Singh R / O Village - Tetaria, P.O- Buddha gere, P.S-
Gaya (M) District - Gaya, Bihar.
5. Upendra Rajak age about 65 Years, S/O Late Pradeep
Rajak R / O Village - Rupas Mahaji P.O- Gayas Pur
Mahaji, P.S-Salim Pur, District- Patna, Bihar
6. Bharat Singh age about 60 years, S/O Late Shambhu
Nath Singh R / O Village- Shastri Nagar, R.N-02 Jail Press
Road, Gaya, P. O. + P.S. -Gaya , District - Gaya, Bihar.
7. Arun Kumar Shrivastava 64 years, S/O Late Shyamala
Nand Lal R/o Flat no. 103B Maa Enclave, Chasire Home
Road, Bariyatu, P. O. + P.S.-Bariyatu, District- Ranchi
8. Gopal Singh age about 68 Years S/O late Ram Kishan
Singh R/O Adarsh Colony Cross No Road-4 Holding no
106 Mang, P.O-Mango, P.S- Mango, District - East
Singhbhum .......... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand , through Secretary Department of
Disaster Management and Jail, R/o Nepal House, P.O. +
P.S.- Doranda, Dist.- Ranchi, Near Project Building
2. Inspector General, Prison, State of Jharkhand, R/O
Village +P.O - Project Building, P.S.- Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi.
3. Accountant General, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi, R / O
Doranda, P .O+P.S- Doranda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
........... Respondents
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Adv.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this
court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer
for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions commanding upon the respondents for
implementation of Resolution vide memo no. 6 / S - 06(PRO)
03/2009 2981/VI Ranchi dated 01.09.2009 (Annexure -1) in the
pension and arears of the petitioners who are eligible for Rs.
4600/- Pay band but Respondents/ State is still paying the
pension on pay band of Rs. 2800/-.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners were appointed on
the post of Warder and they have completed their service of 30
years and have retired on different date between 2014 to 2021 as
mentioned in para 6 of the writ petition. Though after retirement,
they had already been paid their retiral dues like GPF, Group
insurance, gratuity, pension but till date, they have not received
the arrear of 3rd MACP and its benefit in pension. It is contended
by the petitioners, that the government of Jharkhand has taken a
resolution on 01.09.2009 by which, the State of Jharkhand has
implemented the scheme of MACP with effect from 01.09.2008 but
the petitioners retired after completion of 30 years of service and
after the became entitled for pay band of Rs. 4600/- as per Rule no.
20(k) (iii) which provides that if the government employee
completes 5 years after 23 years of grade pay I, then they become
entitled for grade pay II pay band of Rs. 4600/-. Learned counsel
for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners, fulfil all the
requirement of Annexure 1 and entitled for Rs. 4600/- pay band
but the respondents still paying pension to them on pay band of
Rs. 2800/- hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this
writ petition be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, submits that the
petitioners have received the benefit of 3rd MACP in the light of
Finance Department resolution dated 01.09.2009 as per the
eligibility of petitioners as mentioned in details in para 11 of the
counter affidavit. It is next submitted that the arrears of third
MACP had already been given to the petitioner no. 8 - Gopal
Singh on 20.03.2012. it is next submitted that the petitioner no. 8-
Gopal Singh, was appointed on the post of Warder under Grade S-
5 on the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590 on the pay band of
PB-1 corresponding to Grade pay of Rs. 1900/- and thus the case
of the petitioner no. 8 never covered under the provision of Rule
20 (k) (iii) as claimed by him rather the case of the petitioner no. 8
is covered under the provisions of Rule 4 of MACP and according
to which, the petitioner no. 8 is not entitled of pay band of Rs.
4600/- and the petitioner no. 8 is getting highest pension on pay
band of Rs. 2800/-. It is also submitted that the petitioners have
also received the benefit of third MACP in the light of the Finance
Department resolution no. 2981 dated 01.09.2009 with effect from
01.09.2008 and the arears have been paid to them. It is next
submitted that the Rule 20 k (iii) of MACP Scheme is for persons,
who received second regular promotion on pay band II on the
grade pay of Rs. 4200/-and in the present case, the petitioners
have never received the regular promotion on higher scale and
therefore, on the basis of Rule 20 k (i) of the MACP scheme , they
have received all the benefit on grade pay of Rs. 2800/- and none
of the petitioners are eligible to get the pension at the pay band of
Rs. 4600/- .
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that
the petitioners should submit representation before the competent
authority to resolve their grievance, but without submitting any
application before a competent authority in this regard, they have
straightaway filed this writ petition, hence, this writ petitioner is
liable to be dismissed.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and in view of the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, this
writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the
petitioners may file a representation before the competent
authority - respondent no. 2, within four weeks, from the date of
this judgment and in case, such representation is filed, the
respondent no. 2 is directed to consider the same in accordance
with law including all the circulars issued by the Government,
within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.
7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid
direction.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 17th February, 2024
Smita /AFR
