POONAM SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THESE thirteen writ petitioners have approached this court for directing the respondents to grant super time scale of Rs. 2400-4150 (unrevised) and revised scale of Rs. 8000-13500 and also to pay the difference of arrear salary with effect from the due dates till the dates of their respective retirement. Petitioners have also sought a direction upon the respondents to grant revised scale from 1st January 1996 (actual payment from 1st April 1997) along with the arrears of difference of salary.

(3.) RETIRED on 30th September 1996; the petitioner no. 5 retired on 31st July 2001; the petitioner no. 6 was on the verge of retirement and was working as ADSO at Ghatshila Sub Division; the petitioner no. 7 retired on 30th November 2002; the petitioner no. 8 retired on 31st December 1999; the petitioner no. 9 retired on 30th November 2002; the petitioner no. 10 retired on 31st January 1999; the petitioner no. 11 retired on 22nd February 1999; the petitioner no. 12 retired on 31st January 2000; and the petitioner no. 13 retired on 31st May 1996. From perusal of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, it appears that except petitioner nos. 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9, rest of the petitioners were posted and have retired from parent state of Bihar. Petitioners have relied upon the vigilance clearance granted by the office of Lokayukta vide annexure-1 dated 5th August 2002 pursuant to the proposal sent by the Commissioner and Secretary, Food Supply and Commerce Department, Government of Bihar. According to these petitioners, vigilance clearance was granted to the persons named in the list annexed to annexure-2 in which name of these petitioners also transpire. Subsequently, vide notification dated 19th March 2005 annexed as annexure-6 to the rejoinder filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavit of the respondent State of Jharkhand, 37 persons have been granted the benefit of super time scale with effect from 1st March 1989, but the petitioners have been surprisingly left out. 4. Although, the respondent State of Bihar were granted time in the year 2004 and 2006 to file counter affidavit, but no counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf. The respondent State of Jharkhand has filed their counter affidavit giving individual description of these petitioners at paragraph-6 by way of a chart whereby the respondent State of Jharkhand submit that only four petitioners i.e. petitioner nos. 2, 5,7 & 9 have retired from service while working in the jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand, whereas petitioner no. 6 was on the verge of retirement and was posted as ADSO, Deoghar when the affidavit was filed in the January 2005. According to the respondent State of Jharkhand, the State of Jharkhand is not responsible for grant of such super time scale to the other petitioners who have retired prior to the bifurcation of the State of Bihar and they would consider the case relating to grant of higher scale on promotion to persons who were allocated Jharkhand cadre and have retired from the State of Jharkhand.