IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I. A. No. 1056 of 2009
With
W.P. (S) No. 1087 of 2009
.....
Prafulla Pandey ... ... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Bihar and others ... ... Respondents
......
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. N. PATEL
......
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad
For the Respondents : Mr. Prabhash Kumar
......
2/17th of April, 2009
1. The present petition has been preferred mainly for getting pay-
scale of the post of Administrative Officer, which is promotional post, as
per the allegation levelled by the present petitioner.
2. It is vehemently submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner was initially appointed as Circle Assistant thereafter, he was
appointed on the post of Administrative Officer dated 17th January, 1986
(Annexure-1 to the memo of the present petition) thereafter, he was
working, since then on the said post Respondents are not paying the
pay-scale of the post of Administrative Officer which is 1000-1820 and
therefore, the present petition is instituted. Counsel for the petitioner
also relied upon the decision taken by the committee dated 23rd of
March, 1988, which is Annexure-14 to the memo of the petition whereby
as per the paragraph-5 thereof it is submitted that the petitioner is
confirmed on the post of Administrative Officer and therefore, the
respondent has to pay, a pay-scale of the promotional post of
Administrative Officer. Counsel for the petitioner has also taken this
Court to Annexure-17 of the memo of the present petition and submitted
that initially petitioner had filed a petition bearing C. W. J. C. No. 5983 of
2000 before the Patna High Court and ultimately the petition was
disposed of with liberty to raise the claim before this Court and,
therefore, present petition has been instituted.
3. I have heard counsel for the respondents who submitted in the
counter affidavit filed that petitioner was never appointed on the post of
Administrative Officer even as per the Annexure-1 to the memo of the
present petition. Petitioner was appointed as Office Superintendent and
not on the post of Administrative Officer and these two posts i.e.
Administrative Officer and Office Superintendent are two distinct and
2
different posts and their pay-scales are also different and distinct.
Petitioner was working as Circle Assistant, thereafter, as per order dated
25th of June, 1986(Annexure-1), petitioner was given temporarily
promotion on the post of Office Superintendent as post of
Administrative Officer was vacant, but, never the post of Administrative
Officer was given to the present petitioner and, therefore, there is no
question to give any pay-scale of the promotional post of Administrative
Officer to the petitioner and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the
pay-scale of post of Administrative Officer. Counsel for the respondents
also submitted that vide order at Annexure-14 to the memo of the
present petition the petitioner was never confirmed by the committee on
the post of Administrative Officer. On the contrary, looking to the
Annexure-14, last two lines of paragraph-5 thereof, a decision was to be
taken by bureau of enterprise, for the promotion on the post of
Administrative Officer. Thus, the petitioner was never promoted on post
of Administrative Officer and much less he was confirmed on the post of
Administrative Officer and, therefore, petitioner is not entitle for pay
scale for the post of Administrative Officer.
4. Having heard the counsel for the both sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ
petition, mainly, for the following facts and reasons:
(i) It appears that the petitioner was initially appointed
as Circle Assistant. By order at Annexure-1, to the memo of
the present petition, dated 25.06.1986, the petitioner was
promoted on the post of Office Superintendent. It appears
that because of one word used as Administrative Officer
the whole confusion created in the mind of the petitioner.
Infact vide order at Annexure-1 to the memo of the present
petition, the respondent stated that, as the post of
Administrative Officer was vacant, the petitioner was
temporarily promoted to the post of Office Superintendent
on the pay scale of 850-30-1270-1360. It is as simple and as
plain as this: As, post “A” (Administrative Officer) was
vacant, petitioner was appointed on post “B” (Office
Superintendent having pay-scale of 850-30-1270-1360).
Thus, never, vide Annexure -1 to the memo of the present
petition, the higher post of Administrator Officer was not
given to the present petitioner. Counsel for the respondent
3submitted that the pay-scale for Administrative Officer is
1000-1820. Thus, the post of Administrative Officer, is
further higher Post, to the Office Superintendent post,
looking to the higher pay scale.
(ii) Thus, the petitioner was never appointed on the post
of Administrative Officer as per order at Annexure-1. This
is further fortified by perusing Annexure-14 which is a
decision taken by the committee dated 23rd March 1988. It
has been mentioned, specifically in paragraph-5, thereof,
that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Office
Superintendent, but, not on the post of Administrative
Officer. On the contrary, looking to the last two line of
paragraph-5, of Annexure-14, it appears that decision for
promotion on the post of Administrative Officer, will be
taken by the Bureau Enterprises. Thus, if the petitioner
would have been promoted, exactly on the post of
Administrative Officer, there would have been no
necessity, of the last two line of paragraph-5 in Annexure-
14.
(iii) It appears that the petitioner, now, reverted to the
post of Circle Assistant, because he was temporarily on the
post of Office Superintendent. Now petitioner has retired
on February, 2007. Thus, never the petitioner was
appointed, on the post of Administrative Officer, which is
much higher post, even above then the post of Office
Superintendent. Vide order at Annexure-1 to the memo of
the present petition, petitioner was temporarily promoted
on the post of Office Superintendent, which is also
withdrawn, subsequently and, therefore, a writ petition
bearing W. P. S. No. 6537 of 2007 was already instituted
and pending before this Court, but, that matter involves a
question only of withdrawal of the temporarily promotion
of the present petitioner from the post of Circle Assistant to
Office Superintendent. This dispute (viz. withdrawal of
temporarily promotion) has nothing to do with the post of
Administrative Officer. Therefore, contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner that aforesaid may also be heard
with this matter is not accepted by this Court as issues
4
involved in that matter and in present writ petition, are
different and distinct.
(iv) Thus, the petitioner was never appointed on the post
of Administrative Officer and therefore, there is no
question of granting any pay-scale to the petitioner for that
post, whatever arises.
5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is
no substance, in this petition, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
6. I. A. No. 1056 of 2009 stands disposed of in view of the final
disposal of writ petition.
(D. N. Patel. J)
Kamlesh/