Shiv Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 5606 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shiv Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 June, 2024

Author: S.N. Pathak

Bench: S. N. Pathak

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                            W.P.(S) No. 2899 of 2021

                 1. Shiv Kumar Singh
                 2. Mahesh Prasad Sharma                                       ... ... Petitioners
                                                  -   VERSUS-
                 1. The State of Jharkhand
                 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
                    Rajbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
                 3. Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
                    Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
                 4. Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa,
                    Ranchi
                                                                          ... ... Respondents.

                      CORAM:        HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK
               For the Petitioner :        Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
               For the State               Mr. K.K. Singh, SC-VI

14/11.06.2024                Heard the parties.

2. Petitioners are claiming benefits of ACP at par with one Radhika Raman Prasad who was also appointed as a Personal Assistant after being selected through Limited Competitive Examination.

3. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argues that petitioners were initially appointed to the post of Steno-typist. In view of policy decision, they were upgraded to the post of Personal assistant. Similarly situated person in the State of Bihar namely Radhika Raman Prasad was also upgraded to the post of Personal Assistant by way of Limited Competitive Examination on 15.01.1986. It is specific case of the petitioners that in case of said Radhika Raman Prasad, the upgraded scale i.e. Rs.10,000 - 15,200 was given whereas in case of present petitioners, they had been given pay scale of Rs.6,500 - 10,500. Petitioners are claiming same and similar benefits at par with Radhika Raman Prasad. From the documents annexed with the writ petition, it is very much clear that it was the State of Jharkhand who had granted the benefits and not the State of Bihar.

4. Mr. K.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand argues that in view of order dated 17.11.2016, passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14518 of 2013, the said upgradation was made in the case of Radhika Raman Prasad and was granted the benefits of 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500 - 10,500 and 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000 - 15,200 with effect from 09.08.1999. Learned counsel further argues that due to binding effect of

Judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court and order dated 08.08.2017 of the Government of Bihar, the State of Jharkhand had the only option to grant 3rd MACP in next admissible scale i.e.in the pay scale of PB-III - 15,600 - 39,100, GP - 7,600. Learned counsel argues that said fixation was done in a peculiar facts and circumstances and the same cannot be treated as a precedence.

5. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the State is not accepted to this Court. While granting benefits of ACP and fixation of pay scale, one parameter has to be adopted. There cannot be two parameters for similarly situated persons of the State. There cannot be class amongst the class. There has to be rational classification. The stand of the respondents - State is not praiseworthy. The petitioner's claim for second ACP and thereafter deduction of the amount was subject matter of challenge in W.P.(S) No. 1569 of 2006 and the same was upheld in L.P.A. No. 504 of 2017. In view of order passed by this Court and in view of specific direction issued by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14518 of 2013, petitioners are also entitled for the same and similar benefits, which has been given to one Radhika Raman Prasad.

6. As a sequitur to the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the part of memo no. 10505, dated 31.12.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider case of the petitioners for grant of benefits which has been given to Radhika Raman Prasad i.e. 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000 - 15,200 and 3rd MACP in the next admissible scale accordingly. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

7. The writ petition stands allowed.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)