Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 25 August, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:25572
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1793 of 2025
---------
1. Sanjay Kumar, aged about 62 years, son of Bindeshwari Prasad
Ambastha, resident of Road No. 6/C Gardanibagh, P.O. &
P.S.-Gardanibagh, District-Patna (Bihar)
2. Akhilesh Prasad, aged about 67 years, son of Maheshwar Prasad
Singh, resident of Village-Darbeshpura, P.O.-Badi,
P.S.-Katrisarai, District-Nalanda (Bihar)
3. Gulam Mohammad Mustafa, aged about 62 years, son of Late
Md. Abujaffar, resident of Mohalla-Fandallakhan Khan Chowk,
P.O. & P.S.-Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga (Bihar)
4. Pradip Kumar Singh Deb, aged about 69 years, son of
Rameshwar Prasad Singh Deo, resident of Village-Ubardahu,
P.O.-Idsodag, P.S.-Namkum,District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
5. Shyam Singh, aged about 64 years, son of Lakshmi Narayan
Singh, resident of Village-Kagipur, P.O.-Kagipur, P.S.-Patna
Nagar, District-Patna (Bihar)
6. Lila Devi, aged about 59 years, widow of Late Uday Sharma,
resident of Village-Berra, P.O.-Berra, P.S.-Masaurhi,
District-Patna (Bihar) ....Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
Additional
3. The Additional Secretary, Planning cum Finance Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, Jharkhand P.O. and Dhurwa, P.S. District Ranchi,
4. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and
Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its
office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The District Education Officer, Hazaribagh, having its office at
Hazaribagh, G.P.O., P.S.-Sadar, District-Hazaribagh
(Jharkhand) . ....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Navneet Toppo, A.C. to G.P.-I
---------
C.A.V. ON: 26.06.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 25/08/2025
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2025:JHHC:25572
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioners praying therein for quashing of the decision of the
High-Power Committee, dated 11.11.2024, issued by the
respondent no.3, contained in Memo No.2631, dated 27.11.2024.
In the decision, claim of the petitioners for granting them the
pay-scale of Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-, from the date of their
absorption, in their respective posts, instead of
Rs.3,050-Rs.4,590/-, has been denied and rejected.
The petitioners have further prayed for a writ in the
nature of mandamus seeking direction upon the respondent
authorities to follow the recommendation of the Cabinet decision,
dated 30.05.2007, at its para-4, and consequently, fix the
pay-scale of the petitioners at Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-.
Further, they have approached to enhance the arrears
of salary in the pay-scale of Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-, w.e.f. their date
of absorption in the Govt. service, till attainment of the date of
superannuation.
3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that
petitioners were initially appointed in the 1980s on the post of
Typist-cum-Clerk in the prescribed pay-scale of
Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/- (revised) in the Adult Education wing of the
then Govt. of Bihar and the appointment letters were issued by
the Director, from the office of Education Department, Govt. of
Bihar. The petitioners continued in services and when the
scheme came to a close, the question arose before the Govt. to
absorb the services of the employees who had rendered their
services in the prescribed pay-scale.
In this regard, a decision was taken by the Cabinet,
published vide resolution dated 30.05.2007, from the office of
Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand.
The petitioners were directed to be absorbed in the pay-scale of
Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-. There was further caveat, conditional in
the Cabinet decision that the past services will not be counted
2025:JHHC:25572
and the absorption will be treated as initial appointment.
Further, the benefit of pay protection shall not be available. With
this decision of the Cabinet, the respondents undertook to post
the petitioners as Typist-cum-Clerk in the various departments
of the Govt.
Ultimately, what culminated was that the petitioners
got posted in the pay-scale of Rs.3,050-Rs.4,590/-, instead of
Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-, i.e. against as was prescribed by the
Cabinet decision dated 30.05.2007. The petitioners though gave
joining, but under protest. Thereafter, they approached this
Court in a series of litigation, and the present case is the third
round in the series.
In the second round of litigation, involving W.P.(S)
No.1280 of 2012, this Court had passed a judgment and order
dated 17.01.2024, where a specific finding was provided that
once the Cabinet decision has been taken to post the petitioners
in the pay-scale of Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-, no question arises of
posting them in the pay-scale of Rs.3,050-Rs.4,590/-, until
Cabinet decision was reviewed by the Cabinet itself. That not
being done, the petitioners would be entitled to get the pay-scale
of Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-. On the basis of this conclusive finding,
the matter was referred to the High-Power Committee, to resolve
the anomaly. The respondent authorities, however, passed the
impugned decision, contrary to the findings of this Court. Hence
this writ application.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, it
is clear that the Cabinet decision of absorbing and posting the
petitioners in the pay-scale of Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-, was final.
There was no review to this order. The petitioners, however, were
absorbed and posted in the pay-scale of Rs.3,050-Rs.4,590/-. No
ground has been pleaded in the impugned order, or in the
counter-affidavit, taking the plea of non-availability of post. The
decision of the Cabinet thereafter, was upheld in the judgment of
2025:JHHC:25572
this Hon'ble Court passed in the W.P.(S) No.1280 of 2012. The
judgment passed in the case was never put to challenge or
review. The findings recorded, therefore, have become final.
Hence, it is clear that the claim of the petitioners that
they should have been absorbed on the post carrying pay-scale of
Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/- on the basis of the Cabinet decision stood
approved by the High Court and such view has become final in
the absence of any challenge to it. The judgment, therefore, is
final, as is its finding recorded in the penultimate para-6
concluding that the Govt. had already taken decision to absorb
the petitioners in the pay-scale of Rs 4,000-6,000 which was
never reviewed; as such decision of High Power Committee may
be quashed and set aside and pay scale of Rs 4,000-6,000 may be
granted to these petitioners.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that
pursuant to Order passed by this Court, a High-Power
Committee was constituted on 11/11/2024. Vide Resolution 824
dated-16/05/2007,a decision was taken wherein total 358
employees were absorbed in the pay scale of 4000-6000 and after
retirement of two employees, remaining 356 employees, alike
petitioners, were absorbed.
He further submitted that vacant posts in respective
departments have been mentioned in Column 2 & 3 against
which they have to be adjusted/absorbed and as per the Order
dated-27/11/2024, it has been stated that it is not the case of
Pay Anomaly but it is case of Pay Fixation.
He further submitted that as per Absorption
Resolution No-824 dated-30/05/2007 (Annexure-A to the
Counter Affidavit), wherein Column 11, it has been stated that
these adjustment of the Petitioners are fresh and new
appointments and they cannot claim seniority on basis of their
past services and further in Column 12 of the said resolution ,
that the Petitioners will not be given Pay protection as the
2025:JHHC:25572
adjustment/absorption is considered as fresh and new
appointment and the post of Lower Division Clerk's approved pay
scale is 3050-4590.
He lastly submitted that since the Petitioners are
considered as Fresh and New appointment to the post of Lower
Division Clerk and the pay scale entitled to the post is 3050-4590
and Upper Division Clerk pay scale is 4000-6000, and he also
relied upon the judgment of (Bhola Nath Hansada & Ors vs State
of Jharkhand & Ors)in W.P.S.No.4110 of 2013 vide Order
dated-16/07/2017, wherein Para-11 & 12 it has been held that
these appointments will be considered as fresh and new
appointments and their past services would not be counted for
claiming seniority and for claiming past pay scale. The said
judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Civil Appeal Nos-505-531 of 2020 (Parmeshwar nanda etc
vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors), however, the appeal was
dismissed. Therefore, the relief as sought for cannot be granted to
the Petitioner.
6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and
after going through the documents annexed with the respective
affidavits and the averments made therein; it transpires that
pursuant to Order passed by this Court when the matter was
placed before the High Power Committee, the above view taken by
this Court in W.P. (S) No.1280 of 2012 of the matter was never
taken into consideration; rather, the decision was taken over and
above the final conclusion recorded by this Court, without having
any mention of it.
It was observed in the decision of High-Power
Committee that the instant case is not a case of pay-scale
anomaly; rather, the decision to place the petitioners in the
pay-scale of Rs.3,050-Rs.4,590/-, is in consonance with the
Cabinet decision. The impugned decision has taken three (3)
grounds to reject the claim of the petitioners to have the
2025:JHHC:25572
pay-scale of Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-, they are as follows: -
i. The Cabinet decision provides that the absorption of the
employees will be considered as initial appointment and
past services will not be counted;
ii. The initial appointment in clerical cadre of the department is
of Lower Division Clerk, which carries pay-scale of
Rs.3,050-Rs.4,590/-, whereas, the pay-scale of
Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/- is the pay-scale of Upper Division
Clerk, which would be a promotional post, hence cannot be
granted if the absorption is to be understood as initial
appointment in the cadre;
iii. The Cabinet decision discards pay-protection on the basis
of past services.
7. The first two grounds, which are related to the caveat
introduced in the Cabinet decision dated 30.05.2007, stating
that the absorption will be treated as initial appointment and
hence past services will not be counted; cannot be applied out of
place to deny the claim of the petitioners.
It is true that the past services of the petitioners
cannot be counted, which the petitioners are not even claiming
for. It is further true that the absorption will be treated as initial
appointment, which is also not being disputed by the petitioners.
The claim of the petitioners, however has to be
understood in consonance with the plain reading of the
provisions contained in para-4 of the Cabinet decision dated
30.05.2007, which clearly says that the petitioners will be
absorbed in the pay-scale of Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-. This Court
has also given categorical observation in W.P.(S) No.1280 of 2012
regarding the above. The decision taken in paragraph no.4 has to
be read strictly, while understanding the caveats that have been
put in the Cabinet decision, which are that the absorption will be
taken as initial appointment.
8. As a matter of fact, there is already a decision to place
2025:JHHC:25572
the petitioners in the pay-scale of Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-, despite
of the fact that the initial appointment in the cadre of clerk, may
be of Lower Division Clerk carrying pay-scale of
Rs.3,050-Rs.4,590/-. The Cabinet decision nowhere says that
the absorption shall be made on the post of Lower Division Clerk
or that the appointment shall be made in the pay-scale of
Rs.3,050-Rs.4,590/-; on the contrary, the Cabinet decision says
that the absorption shall be done in the pay-scale of
Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-.
Under such circumstances, when two positions are to
be read together, it would mean that the petitioners would be
absorbed in the pay-scale of Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-, and such
absorption in the pay-scale of Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/- will be
treated as initial appointment, without counting of the past
services in that pay-scale.
9. Further, the point that the LDC (in the pay-scale of
Rs.3,050-Rs.4,590/-) is the basic post in the cadre will not deter
the case of the Petitioners, inasmuch as, their absorption is
prescribed by the Cabinet decision on the specific pay scale of
Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-.
10. The third ground being that the pay-protection is
barred in the Cabinet decision only means that the pay/salary
that the petitioners were getting prior to the absorption will not
be protected, that is to say that the increments will not be
restored, but this provision has nothing to do with the allocation
of the pay-scale. Again, at para-4 of the Cabinet decision, it has
already specified and prescribed that the petitioners will be
allotted the pay-scale of Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-; hence, it has
nothing to do with pay-protection clause. Further, pay-protection
has nothing to do with the allocation of pay-scale.
11. The grounds taken by the respondents in the
impugned decision, therefore cannot over-ride the decision of the
Cabinet that the petitioners have to be allotted the pay-scale of
2025:JHHC:25572
Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-.
12. Further, judgements relied by the respondents(Bhola
Nath Hansadaas well as Parmeshwar nanda case (supra) case
are not applicable in fact and circumstances, as in the instant
case petitioners are not claiming their past services or pay
protection rather; they are claiming for implementation of
Cabinet decision dated 30.05.2007.
13. Under such circumstances, the grounds of
non-availability of pay-protection, not counting of past services
and the absorption being treated as initial appointment, of the
High-Power committee does not hinder or restrict the view that
the petitioners should be granted pay-scale of
Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-, as decided by the Cabinet and the
categorical observation by this Court in the earlier judgment
passed in W.P.(S) No.1280 of 2012. Therefore, the decision of the
High-Power Committee, dated 11.11.2024, issued by the
respondent no.3, contained in Memo No.2631, dated 27.11.2024
is quashed and set aside and the concerned respondent is
directed to fix the pay scale of Rs.4,000-Rs.6,000/-w.e.f. their
date of absorption in the Govt. service, till attainment of the date
of superannuation and the consequential benefit be extended in
favour of the petitioners accordingly within a period of 12 weeks
from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
14. Having regards to the above, this Writ application
stands allowed. Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
vikas/-
A.F.R.
