Skip to content


Sajit Kumar Lakra and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantSajit Kumar Lakra and Ors.
RespondentState of Jharkhand and Ors.
Excerpt:
.....promotion   and  selection grades were abolished, however, it was provided that  need­based posts in the promotional scales would be identified in  the manner indicated therein and scale of the need­based posts  would be assigned to the employees in order of seniority. under  clause­12(iii) of resolution dated 08.02.1999 it is provided that  the cadre controlling authority will issue an order indicating the  names   of   the   persons   entitled   to   the   revised   scale   of   the  need­based posts.  6.   grievance of the petitioners is that after abolition of  selection grades, the controlling authority was under a duty to  identify   and   notify   need­based   posts   in  .....
Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6340 of 2006 1.   Sajit   Kumar   Lakra,   S/o­   Late   Dhan   Kumar   Lakra,   Retired  Deputy   Director,   Soil   Conservation,   Ranchi,   Department   of  Agriculture   and   Sugarcane   Development,   Jharkhand,   Ranchi,  resident of GEL Mission Compound, PO, PS & District­Lohardaga 2.   Mrs.   Chonhen   Kujur,   w/o­   Late   Niman   Kujur   resident   of  Kumhar Toli, beside Manoranjan Apartment, Kadru, PO­Doranda,  PO&PS­Argora, Ranchi 3. Junas Jairas Tirkey, S/o­ Late Ahlad Tirkey, Joint Director of  Agriculture,   Ranchi,   Department   of   Agriculture   &   Sugarcane  Development, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Resident of Kanke Tangra Toli,  PO­Kanke, District­Ranchi  ...   ...  Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand  2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture and  Sugarcane Development, Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The State of Bihar, through Agriculture Production  Commissioner, Bihar, Patna           ... ... Respondents ----------------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioners        : Mr. Naresh Pd. Singh, Advocate        Mr. Arbind Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State of Jharkhand:Mr. Ajit Kumar, J.C. to S.C. (L&C) For the State of Bihar      : Mr. Binit Chandra, J.C. to G.A.(Bihar) -------------------- 14/11.11.2016 The   writ   petition   was   admitted   for   hearing   on  19.10.2016, however, it has again appeared on Board today.  2.      The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that  he   would   confine   the   prayer   in   the   writ   petition   only   for   a  direction to the respondents to consider assigning the pay­scale  of   the   need­based   identified   posts   to   the   petitioners,   with  consequential benefits. The learned counsel for the State raises  no objection to the aforesaid prayer. 3.   Heard.

4. There   are   three   petitioners,   however,   the   petitioner  no.   2   died   during   the   pendency   of   the   writ   petition   and   vide  order   dated   02.09.2015   his   wife   has   been   substituted   in   his  place. 2 5.  The petitioners were appointed in Bihar Subordinate  Agriculture Service and they were promoted on Class­2 post on  regular   basis   w.e.f.   27.10.1986   in   the   pay­scale   of  Rs. 2,200­4,000. Notification dated 12.10.1993 contains name of  the petitioners at Sl. Nos. 265, 268 and 277. On completion of 5  years'   service   in   the  basic  grade   of  Bihar  Agriculture   Services,  Class­2   they   were   promoted   to   Junior   Selection   Grade   in  pay­scale of Rs. 3,000­4,500 vide notification dated 29.05.2002,  w.e.f.   27.10.1991.   For   promotion   to   Senior   Selection   Grade  essential eligibility is 5 years service in Junior Selection Grade.  Accordingly,   the   petitioners were   eligible   for  promotion  to  the  Senior Selection Grade w.e.f. 27.10.1996, however, they were not  promoted   and   in   the   meantime,   the   State   Government   issued  Memo dated 08.02.1999 for revision of pay­scale in tune with  the Central Government Employees pay­scale, w.e.f. 01.01.1996.  Under   the   aforesaid   decision   time­bound   promotion   and  selection grades were abolished, however, it was provided that  need­based posts in the promotional scales would be identified in  the manner indicated therein and scale of the need­based posts  would be assigned to the employees in order of seniority. Under  Clause­12(iii) of Resolution dated 08.02.1999 it is provided that  the Cadre Controlling Authority will issue an order indicating the  names   of   the   persons   entitled   to   the   revised   scale   of   the  need­based posts.  6.   Grievance of the petitioners is that after abolition of  selection grades, the Controlling Authority was under a duty to  identify   and   notify   need­based   posts   in   the   promotion   scales,  however, in case of the petitioners who were holding a post in  higher  scale,  the said post  was not notified as the need­based  posts   and   they   were   not   granted   revised   pay­scale   of   the  need­based posts. 7.   Several   affidavits   have   been   filed   in   the   present  proceeding, however, the respondents have not taken a specific  3 stand   denying   the   claim   of   the   petitioners.   In   supplementary  counter­affidavit dated 04.08.2016, the respondents have taken a  stand that the Agricultural Department, Bihar is the competent  authority to identify the need­based primary posts and to assign  the scale of the need­based posts to the petitioners. The aforesaid  stand, in my opinion does not resolve the dispute. The petitioner  no. 1 was posted as District Agricultural officer, Hazaribagh on  30.06.1998. Subsequently, he was posted as Deputy Director of  Agriculture   (Soil   Conservation)   at   Ranchi   in   the   pay­scale   of  Rs.   10,000­325­15,200.   He   superannuated   from   service   on  30.11.2003. The petitioner no. 2 was posted as Deputy Director  of   Agriculture   (Soabin)   at   Ranchi   vide   notification   dated  31.12.1993. He  was given the scale of Rs. 6,500­10,500 w.e.f.  01.01.1996.   He   superannuated   from   service   on   31.05.2001,  however,   before   that   he   was   posted   as   Principal,  Extension   Training   Centre,   Ranchi   in   the   scale   of  Rs. 10,000­325­15,200. Similarly, petitioner no. 3 was posted as  Deputy Director of Agriculture (Planning) at Ranchi, however, he  was   given   a   scale   of   Rs.   6,500­10,500.   Subsequently,   he   was  posted as District Agricultural Officer, Gumla. This post carries  pay­scale of Rs. 10000­325­15200. Thereafter, he was posted as  Joint Director of Agriculture. The petitioners continued to hold  the   aforesaid   posts   in   higher   pay­scale   posts   till   their  superannuation   from   service.   Those   posts   carry   pay­scale   of  Rs. 10,000­325­15,200. They all remained in the service of State  of   Jharkhand   after   the   bifurcation   of   erstwhile   State   of   Bihar.  Orders   passed   in   the   present   proceeding   disclose   that   several  directions were issued by this Court, however, the affidavits filed  by the respondents are completely silent on the issues indicated  in orders passed by this Court. Order dated 14.02.2011 reads as  under : “This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners   for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon   4 the respondents for assigning the scale of the need   based identified posts to the petitioners in order of   seniority   with   consequential   monetary   benefits   in   terms   of   direction   given   in   para   12(ii)   of   the   Government Order. The   respondents   in   its   para   12   of   the   counter­affidavit   have  stated  that  the  cadre of  the   petitioners   was   finally   allocated   on   30.06.2006,   thereafter,   they   have   started   the   process   of   promotion.   It   is   also   indicated   in   the   counter­affidavit that certain basis formalities are to   be done i.e. seniority list, identification of posts etc.   which are necessary pre­requisites for the same. The   counter­affidavit   was   filed   in   the   year,   2007   and   the   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   states that the State has not taken any decision so   far.          The State is directed to file its counter­affidavit   about the exact status of the petitioners' promotion   and also clarify as to why the order has not been   passed within three years. The   counter­affidavit   on   behalf   of   the   Principal   Secretary   of   the   concerned   Department   would be filed before this Court within three weeks.   Post this matter thereafter. The gist of this order has been noted down by   the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.   However, let a copy of this order be also given to the   learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.” 8.  Similarly,   order   dated   06.07.2015   notices   that   the  supplementary  counter­affidavit  filed on 09.07.2013 was silent  on   the   question   of   granting   promotions   to   the   petitioners.  Thereafter,   several   adjournments   were   granted   by   the   Court,  however, no effective order was passed by the respondent­State.  As noticed above, in the supplementary counter­affidavit dated  04.08.2016 the respondents­State of Jharkhand has tried to shift  the burden on Agricultural Department, Bihar. However, I am of  the   opinion   that   the   State   of   Jharkhand,   under   whom   the  5 petitioners   served  and  superannuated  from  service,   is  under  a  duty to take a decision on the claim raised by the petitioners.  9. In   the   light   of   the   facts   noticed   hereinabove,   the  Principal   Secretary,   Department   of   Agriculture   and   Sugarcane  Development,   Government   of   Jharkhand­respondent   no.   2   is  directed to take a decision;   (i)  Whether the posts held by the petitioners between the  period   01.01.1996   to   07.08.1999   were   need­based  posts or not ?   (ii)  If  yes,   declare  those   posts  as need­based posts and  issue   direction   for   payment   of   salary   to   the  petitioners in the pay­scale of Rs. 10,000­325­15,200  and   consequent   revision   in   their   retiral  benefits/family pension.  10. The   writ   petition   stands   allowed   to   the   aforesaid  extent.    (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/­


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //