IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 2417 of 2005
...
1. Abdul Jabbar
2. Jangli Kumar Das
3. Godawari Devi
4. Ram Narayan Jha
5. Sidheshwar Das
6. Sudarshan Mandal
7. Ram Krishna Sharma
8. Mukund Tuddu
9. Alexander Toppo
10. Khalil Ansari
11. Ram Chandra Prasad
12. Sudama Maharan ... ... Petitioners
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.
3. Deputy Collector (Estab.), Dhanbad.
4. Vinod Kumar Verma ... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioners : - Ms. Sujata Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For the State : - Mr. A. Allam, Sr. S.C. II.
and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, J.C. to Sr. S.C. II.
...
4/05.05.2010
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ application is against the
refusal of the Respondents to treat the petitioners in the general cadre of Assistants
and to extend the consequential benefits thereof in the matter of granting equal pay-
scales pursuant to the pay Revision and pursuant to the fixation of the pay-scale after
the grant of the A.C.P. benefits.
3. It appears that in response to a common advertisement
dated-23.04.1981, issued by the Labour, Employment & Training Department in the
district of Dhanbad, applications were invited from the eligible candidates in the
General category for filling up 30 vacant posts of Assistants.
In response, the petitioners had applied.
After completing the selection process, a common select list
was prepared in which the names of the petitioners and those of the private
Respondents being the selected candidates, were published..
The advertisement, against which the applications were invited
had declared that the pay-scale as stipulated in the advertisement, would be
applicable to the candidates. On their selection, a common appointment letter
dated-19th August, 1981 was issued, and the selected candidates were thereafter
posted in the several Departments, some in the District Collectorate and some
candidates like the petitioners in the Welfare Department and some in the District
Social Security Department of the Districts and some in other Departments in the
same district.
It appears that after the appointment made, a distinction was
sought to be drawn between the appointed candidates in as much as, by carving out
the different cadres for some of them, the scales stipulated in the advertisement was
offered to them while to the others, a lower pay-scale was offered.
It further appears that under similar situations, some of the
selected candidates who were selected and appointed in the Giridih Collectorate, had
filed a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 169 of 1991 (R). The said writ application
was disposed of declaring that in view of the fact that the same selection process
was adopted and under the same panel, the writ petitioners and the other appointed
candidates were appointed and since the advertisement had declared that the pay-
scales against which the candidates had applied, would be applicable to them on their
selection, the Respondents-authorities cannot make any discrimination between the
appointees, by paying a lower pay-scale to some of the candidates and higher pay-
scales to the others. Consequent upon the order passed in the aforesaid writ
application, the concerned authorities of the State Government in the concerned
District, had regularized the pay-scales of all the appointed candidates.
It further appears that while the issues were finally resolved, a
fresh controversy arose at the time of extending the benefits of the first A.C.P. to the
candidates who had acquired the eligibility for the same, on the plea that the Finance
Department has fixed the lower pay-scales for the Accounts Clerk working in the
Social Security Department and a higher pay-scales for the Assistants working in the
District Collectorate. The revised pay-scales upon grant of A.C.P. benefits has been
fixed for the petitioners working in the Social Security Department, at a lower scale,
whereas for those working in the District Collectorate, the higher scale.
From perusal of the counter affidavit of the Respondents, it
appears that while taking the aforesaid stand regarding the Finance Department’s
Resolution, fixing the different pay-scales of the appointees, a further ground has
been taken that such Resolution having been issued by the Finance Department of
the State Government in the year 2002 and was never challenged by any of the
aggrieved petitioners.
4. As per the admitted facts, the petitioners and the private Respondents,
herein were appointed pursuant to the common Advertisement, in which only one
post, comprising of only one Grade was declared and no distinction was drawn
between the Assistants and the Accounts Clerks. As has been declared by this Court
vide C.W.J.C. No. 169 of 1991 (R), the Respondents-authorities cannot possibly
make any arbitrary distinction between those appointees, who pursuant to their
selection, were appointed in the Social Security Department and those working in the
District Collectorate. Admittedly, all the candidates including the present petitioners
and the private Respondents were originally appointed as Assistants. No reason has
been assigned by the Respondent-State, as to on what basis, has the State Finance
Department made a distinction between those working in the Social Security
Department and those who were working in the various District Collectorates.
5. I am satisfied from the above facts and circumstances that the claim of
the petitioners for equal pay-scales pursuant to the fixation of the scales upon the
grant of the first A.C.P., is reasonable, genuine and legitimate. The fixation of the
lower pay-scale for the petitioners is apparently arbitrary and discriminatory and it
could not be sustained in law.
6. In the light of the above discussions, I find merit in this writ
application. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The Respondents-
authorities are directed to treat the petitioners in equal footing as the private
Respondents herein and to give the benefits of the same pay-scales to the petitioners,
equal to the scale given to the private Respondents and appropriate corresponding
order in the light of the above directions, should be issued by the concerned
authorities, so as to enable the petitioners herein to avail the benefits of the equal
pay-scales, within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
7. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
Respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK