IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.4481 of 2009
Kiran Bala Sinha .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari
For the Petitioner : M/s. M.K.Dey, Sr. Advocate
A.K.Das & V. Sinha, Advocates
For the Respondents : J.C. To G.P.II
-----
6/21.06.2011
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the
respondents to grant seniority with consequential benefit and annual increments
in salary w.e.f. 1987.
According to the petitioner, she was empanelled for appointment in 1987.
The other candidates, who were also in the same panel were appointed in 1987,
but the petitioner was not appointed. She had filed writ application being
C.W.J.C. no. 847 of 1992(R) before the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench(as
then was). The said writ application was allowed directing the respondents to
issue appointment letter to the petitioner. The respondents thereafter issued
appointment letter on 1.5.1993. The petitioner’s service was not wanted with
effect from the date on which the other candidates in the same panel were
appointed in the year 1987. The petitioner protested against the said
discrimination and subsequently filed another writ application being C.W.J.C.
no.3203 of 1997(R) before the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench (as then was),
praying for a direction to restore her seniority w.e.f. 1987 and fix her pay with
effect from that date. The said writ petition was allowed directing the
respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate
order. The respondents, thereafter, considered the petitioner’s representation
and passed order allowing her notional seniority to reckon from 1987. However,
it was specifically mentioned that the same will not have any effect on annual
increments or for payment of salary and the notional seniority shall be counted
only for the purpose of considering promotion of the candidates of 1987 panel.
The said order was further modified by the respondents to the extent that the
petitioner shall be entitled to get benefit at par with Om Prakash Sah and
Sachidanand Sah, Assistant Teachers, who were also in the panel of 1987, but
were appointed on subsequent dates.
Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the
aforesaid Assistant Teachers-Om Prakash Sah and Sachidanand Sah had got
the benefit of fixation of pay and annual increments w.e.f. 1987 the year in
which the other candidates of the panel were appointed. The petitioner is, thus,
entitled to get the said benefit. Though the said claim is pending before the
respondents, they have neither denied nor any order has been
passed accepting the said claim of the petitioner.
.2.
Learned J.C. To G.P.II, appearing on behalf of the respondents,
submitted that the factual position stated by the petitioner has not been disputed
by them. It has been stated that though the petitioner along with Girish Chandra
Singh, Om Prakash Sah and Sachidanand Sah were in the same panel of 1987,
their dates of appointment are different.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts and
materials on record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was empanelled for
appointment in the year 1987 along with others. However, letter of appointment
was not issued to her while other similarly situated persons were appointed
w.e.f 1.9.1993 by the order of this Court. The competent authority had issued
order that she shall be equally treated with the others whose names appeared in
1987 panel, but were subsequently appointed. An order to that respect was also
passed by the Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Department,
Jharkhand, Ranchi as far back as on 6.3.2000. But inspite of that petitioner’s
seniority has not been restored w.e.f. 1987 and annual increments have not
been granted on that basis. The respondents have, thus, already admitted that
the petitioner is entitled to get seniority as well as annual increments in salary
reckoning from 1987. No reason has been assigned either by filing counter
affidavit or any order passed by the respondents for not placing her at the
appropriate place in the seniority list and for not giving annual increments in
salary on the basis of the said decision.
For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents
are directed to place the petitioner the appropriate place in the seniority list
according to their earlier decision to treat her at par with Ajay Kant Jha and
another similarly situated Assistant Teachers and issue order to that effect and
release the benefit of annual increments, as has been done in the cases of
other similarly situated persons. However, it has been clearly said on behalf of
the petitioner that she shall not claim any salary for the period from 1987 till the
date of actual appointment and he said period shall be counted only for the
purpose of fixing seniority and for fixing annual increment in salary, as has been
earlier allowed by the respondents by virtue of Annexure-5.
( Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.)
s.b.