RAM LAGAN RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing and setting aside Memo No. 05 dated 01.01.2018 (Annexure-8), whereby and where under, the pay scale of the petitioners has been revised dehors the Rule.

(2.) The case of the petitioners lies in a narrow compass. The petitioners were working to Class-III post in the office of Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi and petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 retired from services on 31..03.2013, 31.07.2011, 31.12.2012, 31.07.2004 and 31.03.2010 respectively from the office of the respondents. During the service period, the petitioner No.1 was granted Senior Selection Grade in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 vide Memo No. 1109 dated 14.06.2003 which was later on upgraded to the pay scale of 5500-9000 vide Memo dated 09.01.2010 in light of the recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee and acceptance thereof by the Department of Finance. Similarly, petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were granted Junior Selection Grade in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- vide office order contained in Memo No. 1110 dated 14.06.2003. It is further the case of the petitioners that on completion of requisite service tenure, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were granted benefits of 1st, 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP, whereas petitioner No.5 was granted the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP and same was confirmed by the respondents vide different office orders. Further, the pay scales of 4500-7000 were replaced to 5000-8000. Similarly the pay scales of 5000-8000 was replaced to 5500-9000 and the order to this effect was issued by respondent No. 3 vide Memo No.661 dated 18.05.2011. The respondent No.3 had taken aforesaid decision in light of the fact that there were two ladders of promotion of the cadre of the Divisional Ministerial Education Service, Vide Memo No. 661 dated 18.05.2011 that the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- were replaced to Rs. 5000-8000/- and pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- was replaced to 5500- 9000/-. It is specific case of the petitioners that after attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 retired from services on 31..03.2013, 31.07.2011, 31.12.2012, 31.07.2004 and 31.03.2010 respectively and thereafter, pension was sanctioned on 09.07.2013, 10.02.2012, 11.01.2013, 23.02.2006 and 22.02.2012 respectively. However, almost after 5 year of fixation of pension, the petitioner No.1 received show-cause dated 06.10.2017 as to why the ACP/MACP granted to him be not revised. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner No.1 submitted his reply on 28.11.2017 but, the respondent No.3, without considering the reply of the petitioner No.1 and without even issuing any show-cause to petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, passed impugned order contained in Memo No. 05 dated 01.01.2018, whereby and where under, the pay scale of the petitioners has been revised, which is under challenge.

(3.) Mrs. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that impugned order dated 01.01.2018 is not tenable in the eyes of law as no departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioners in terms of 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules and neither any Memo of Charge was framed nor Inquiry Officer was ever appointed and as such, without following the due procedure laid down under the law, impugned order has been passed. She further submits that impugned order has been passed after more than three years from the date of sanctioning the pension to the petitioners as the pension of the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were sanctioned on 09.07.2013, 10.02.2012, 11.01.2013, 23.02.2006 and 22.02.2012 respectively whereas impugned order has been passed on 01.01.2018. The petitioners are Class-III employee and it is well settled law that grant of ACP/Promotions to Class-III employees cannot be revised/reversed either when they are at the verge of retirement or after retirement and in the present case, the ACP/MACP granted to them has been sought to be revised after almost five years from the date of fixation of pension, which is illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with law and as such, impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners places heavy reliance on following reported Judgment of this Court: