Jharkhand High Court
Kishori Rajak vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 September, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4474 of 2021
Kishori Rajak, aged about 64 years, son of late Narayan Rajak, resident of
Bhagwati Enclave, 4/A, Basant Vihar, Harmu, PO- Harmu, PS-Argora,
District-Ranchi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Nepal House, PO & PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi
3. Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Nepal House, PO & PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to GP-VI
--------
JUDGMENT
CAV on 22/08/2024 Pronounced on 24/09/2024
The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner
praying therein for quashing the order issued under Memo No. 7064 dated
05.12.2019 (Annexure-7); whereby the claim of the petitioner for notional
promotion and consequential benefits for the post of Chief Engineer has been
rejected.
Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondent-
authorities to pay the difference of amount of salary between the post of Chief
Engineer and Superintending Engineer.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on
26.06.1987 on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and thereafter on
20.06.1995 he was granted promotion on the post of Executive Engineer.
Subsequently, by virtue of Notification (Annexure-1) he was given independent
charge of Superintending Engineer. Accordingly, on 31.07.2007, petitioner took
independent charge of the post of Superintending Engineer though his
substantive post was Executive Engineer. Further, on 05.07.2010, petitioner was
given independent charge of the post of Chief Engineer; though his substantive
post was Executive Engineer. Thereafter, he retired on 31.01.2018 from the post
of Chief Engineer, In-charge.
3. Though in the instant writ application the petitioner has also
prayed for quashing of reasoned order; whereby claim of notional promotion to
the post of Chief Engineer was rejected; however, during course of hearing Mr.
A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not want to press
the prayer for notional promotion since the petitioner already retired from
service on 31.01.2018.
Mr. Sahani confines his prayer with regard to monetary benefit to
the petitioner as he worked as In-charge Superintending Engineer from
19.07.2007 till 04.07.2010 and thereafter from 05.07.2010 till the date of his
retirement, he worked as In-charge Chief Engineer though his substantive post
was Executive Engineer.
The main grievance of the petitioner after relinquishing the claim
for notional promotion is that though he was on the post of Executive Engineer
from 19.07.2007, he worked as In-charge Superintending Engineer till
04.07.2010 and from 05.07.2010 he worked as In-charge Chief Engineer; and
both the posting was not an ad hoc and/or stop gap arrangement; rather it
continues for years together.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue with
regard to payment of difference of salary to an employee posted on a junior post
on substantive basis but doing work of higher post on in-charge basis; and the
same is not an ad hoc arrangement; rather planned, has been decided in favour
of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 6618 of 2013 titled "Chanda Hembrom v. The
State of Jharkhand & Ors.". He further submits that the said writ application
was affirmed up till the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. In reply to the aforesaid contention, Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to
GP-VI representing the respondents submits that since now the petitioner has
given up the prayer for notional promotion, as such he may be directed to
represent the concerned respondent with regard to his prayer of monetary
benefits in the light of settled rules in this regard.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the documents available on record, it appears that the main grievance of
this petitioner is that while working as In-charge Superintending Engineer from
19.07.2007 till 04.07.2010, he was on substantive post of Executive Engineer
and he was being given salary of Executive Engineer and not of Superintending
Engineer. Thereafter, he was again given charge of Chief Engineer with effect
from 05.07.2010 till his retirement i.e. on 31.01.2018 but he was drawing the
salary of an Executive Engineer itself. Further, the in-charge posting was not on
ad hoc and/or stop gap arrangement; rather continuous.
The issue with regard to payment of difference of salary to an
employee posted on a junior post on substantive basis but working in higher post
on in-charge basis; and the same is not an ad hoc arrangement; rather intended,
has been decided in favour of the petitioner in the case of Chanda Hembrom
(supra) [refer, paragraph nos. 6 to 12].
7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the
said order has been affirmed up till the Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, the
instant writ application is disposed of by directing the respondent no.2 to look
into the matter and pass an appropriate order for payment of difference of salary
for the period 19.07.2007 till 04.07.2010 to the petitioner while he was working
as Superintending Engineer on in-charge basis and also for the period from
05.07.2010 till his retirement i.e. on 31.01.2018; while he was posted as Chief
Engineer on in-charge basis and make payment thereof.
The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of
16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
8. As a result, the instant writ application stands disposed of in the
manner indicate hereinabove.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 24 /09/2024
Amit
AFR/NAFR
