IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 4920 of 2007
...
Lal Jyotindranath Sahdeo ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
3. The Block Development Officer, Torpa Block
4. The Block Development Officer, Adki Block
5. The Block Development Officer, Ratu Block ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. K.K.Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: - Mr. Manoj Tandon, S.C.-II.
...
3/ 07.10.2009
Through this writ application, the petitioner has demanded from the
respondents the payment of arrears of salary for the period 10.05.1988 to
21.09.1990, payment of increments of salary from 1990 to 1994, House Rent
Allowance @ 15% of the basic salary during his posting at Ratu Block till the
date of his retirement, benefits of A.C.P. in actual terms of notification dated
14.08.2002, interest on the delayed payment of the due amount payable to
the petitioner and revision of pension amount after adding the benefits of
A.C.P. in terms of the notification dated 14.08.2002.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
respondent State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
had rendered service from 10.05.1988 to 21.09.1990 in the Adki Block but his
salary for the aforesaid period was not paid. Furthermore, the A.C.P.
benefits in actual terms of the notification dated 14.08.2002, has not been
given to the petitioner on account of a misconceived ground that the
petitioner did not pass the departmental examination and though
exemption was granted to the petitioner from passing the departmental
examination, the increments were given from a later date instead of the date
when the benefits of A.C.P. had accrued to him. Learned counsel adds
further that the Government Rules do provide the payment of House Rent
Allowance @ 15% of the basic salary and though such percentage of House
Rent Allowance is being paid to other employees who are employed in Ratu
Block, but the same has been denied to the petitioner.
Learned counsel explains further that by notification dated
14.08.2002 which relates to the grant of A.C.P. benefits, the State
Government has declared that such benefits should be given to the
Government servants who have completed 12/24 years of their service from
-2-
the date of their appointment. The benefits, according to the learned
counsel, are not linked with passing of the departmental examination and
the constraints at best on account of non-passing of the departmental
examination, would be confined only to the regular promotions and not to
the increments in salary, pursuant to the A.C.P. benefits. Learned counsel
adds further that from 1990 to 1994 the petitioner was entitled to the annual
increments in salary but the same has not been paid to him.
Learned counsel would want to explain that as clearly indicated in
the various clauses of the scheme, such Government servants who have not
been granted the benefits of regular promotion and who have completed
12/24 years of service, are entitled to the grant of first and second A.C.P.
respectively.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents State, while inviting
attention to the statements contained in the several paragraphs of the
counter affidavit, would submit that the petitioner’s claim for arrears of
salary for the period 10.05.1988 to 21.09.1990 could not be assessed in view
of the fact that during that period the petitioner was posted in Adki Block
and all the relevant documents pertaining to his attendance and duty, could
not be made available to the answering respondent. Learned counsel has
assured that as and when the relevant documents are made available, the
petitioner’s claim would be scrutinized and if the petitioner’s claim for
payment of arrears of salary for the aforesaid period is found genuine and
payable, the same would be released to him.
As regards the claim for House Rent Allowance @ 15% of the basic
salary, learned counsel explains that the respondents had received an audit
objection in respect of payment of House Rent Allowance @ 15% and as
such, the answering respondent cannot possibly pay more than the
stipulated 5% of the basic salary towards House Rent Allowance. Learned
counsel however is not able to inform as to on what grounds has the audit
objections for payment of House Rent Allowance @ 15% been raised
although undisputedly, the Government Rules do provide for payment of
House Rent Allowance @ 15% of the basic salary, though subject to certain
conditions.
As regards the petitioner’s claim for A.C.P. benefits and increments
in salary for the period stated, learned counsel informs that the Rule
relating to passing of the departmental examination did squarely apply to
the petitioner under which as long as the Government servant did not pass
the departmental examination, he is not entitled to any promotion
-3-
whatsoever. The benefits of A.C.P. with the consequential effect of
increments in scale would also be affected by the aforesaid Rule. Learned
counsel adds that it was only after the petitioner had attained the age of 50
years and an exemption was granted to him from passing the departmental
examination, that his case was considered and the benefits of the 1st and 2nd
A.C.P. was duly granted to him and the corresponding increments in salary
was duly assessed and paid to him.
5. Learned counsel would further argue that the Rule regarding passing
of the departmental examination lays down specifically that no promotion
in any manner can be given to the Government employee unless he passes
the departmental examination. The procedure which is laid down in respect
of regular promotion is also applicable in cases of grant of the A.C.Ps. in as
much as, the scheme itself envisages that a Screening Committee should be
constituted for considering the grant of A.C.P. benefits to the Government
servants and only upon the recommendation of the Screening Committee,
can the A.C.P. benefits be given. Since the same procedure is applicable in
the case of grant of regular promotions, it implies therefore that the non-
passing of the departmental examination would constitute a clog even
against the grant of A.C.P. benefits.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel and going through the pleadings, I
find that the petitioner’s claim for payment of arrears of salary for the
period 10.05.1988 to 21.09.1990 is yet to be assessed and ascertained by the
respondents and since the respondents have not taken any final decision on
such claim, the matter is not finally closed.
As regards the claim for payment of House Rent Allowance @ 15% of
the basic salary, the respondents have not informed as to on what
basis/ground has the Audit Department raised objections in respect of the
payment of House Rent Allowance @ 15% of the basic salary.
As regards the grant of A.C.P. benefits, it is informed that since the
A.C.P. benefits have now been given to the petitioner, albeit after the
declaration of his exemption from passing the departmental examination,
the petitioner’s claim for the benefit from a retrospective date even in view
of the fact that he had not passed the departmental examination on the
relevant date, cannot be tenable.
7. In my opinion, the prohibition against the grant of promotion in
absence of passing the departmental examination, would include not only
the regular promotion but also the benefits of the A.C.P. This view finds
support from the various clauses of the scheme of A.C.P. in which the
-4-
procedure has been laid down whereby a Screening Committee is to be
constituted for the purpose of assessing the merit of the employees to assess
whether they deserve the benefits of the A.C.P. It implies therefore that
merely completing 12/24 years of service in itself would not be a ground for
claiming the A.C.P. benefits unless approved by the screening committee.
This view also finds support from the provisions of Sub Clause (VII)
of Clause 3 of the notification pertaining to the A.C.P. benefits, which lays
down that whatever conditions required to be fulfilled by the employees in
respect of their eligibility for the grant of regular promotion, would be
applicable for the grant of A.C.P. benefits also.
8. In the facts and circumstances, I dispose of this writ application with
a direction to the respondents to verify from the service records of the
petitioner as to whether his claim for payment of arrears of salary for the
period 10.05.1988 to 21.09.1990 is genuine and the amount claimed is
payable and if such amount is found payable, then to release the payment to
the petitioner within three months from the date of this order.
The respondents shall also consider as to on what ground the audit
objection has been raised in respect of payment of House Rent Allowance @
15% of the basic salary and examine whether as per Government Rules, the
petitioner is genuinely entitled to 15% of basic salary towards House Rent
Allowance and take an appropriate decision on the same after obtaining a
proper clarification from the Audit Department.
Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
respondent State.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Birendra/