BACHCHU PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioner arose because of Memo No. 2198 dated 01.12.2006, Annexure-11 issued by the Inspector General (Prison), Home (Prison) Department, Ranchi, respondent No. 2 whereby he rejected the claim of the petitioner for being treated as Head Clerk.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in short is that initially in the year 1976 he was appointed as Clerk at the Central Jail, Hazaribagh w.e.f. 01.06.1976. By resolution of the State Government dated 28.03.1979, several-posts were sanctioned for Jail Training Institute including that of Head Clerk. On recommendation being made, the petitioner was appointed on the sole sanctioned post of Head Clerk in the scale of Rs. 284-372/-. However, for certain period, the scale of all these posts i.e. Clerks as well as Head Clerk was same i.e. Rs. 284-372/-. Later on, by the Government Resolution dated 18.12.1999, the pay scale of Clerk was fixed at Rs. 4000-6000/- and that of Head Clerk was fixed on a higher scale at Rs. 4500-7000/-. It is the contention of the petitioner by relying upon the excerpts of the service book contained at Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 12.02.2013 that even in the year 1999 his scale was fixed on the post of Head Clerk as Rs. 4500-7000/-. The petitioner further relies upon the resolution dated 21.09.2007, Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit where the revised scale for the post of Head Clerk shown as Rs. 5000-8000/- from Rs. 4500-7000/- which he was earlier holding. It is the contention of the petitioner that after bifurcation of the State, the respondents did not confirm the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Head Clerk in the tentative allocation of cadre and he was described as Clerk. He, therefore, approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5471 of 2005 wherein vide order dated 07.12.2005, Annexure-8, it was also observed that the petitioner was already getting pay scale of Head Clerk, if he had any grievance, he may approach the Inspector General (Prisons), Jharkhand, Ranchi, who shall look into the matter and take a decision in accordance with law.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order contained at Annexure-11 dated 01.12.2006 was passed rejecting his claim for the post of Head Clerk Primarily on two grounds:- (a) that the post of Head Clerk was never allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand at the time of bifurcation of the cadre in the parent State. (b) that the petitioner's appointment as Head Clerk in the year 1979 was never confirmed for which correspondence was also made with the Inspector General (Prisons), Bihar as late as in August, 2006. However, it has been indicated in the impugned order that all along he was posted in different Divisional jails at different places where he was holding the post of Clerk. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the information furnished under the RTI which is annexed to I.A. No. 471 of 2013 as Annexure-1 wherein the post of Head Clerk has been shown in the Class-Ill post of the Jail Training Institute, Hazaribagh. By relying upon further document contained at Annexure-3 of the instant I.A. dated 28.04.2012 issued by the Assistant Inspector General-cum-Public Information Officer, it is submitted that the posts, which were existing at the Jail Training Institute, Hazaribagh at the time of bifurcation of the parent State have not been subjected to cadre division. Based on these documents brought on record, which has been obtained through RTI, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground for rejecting the petitioner's claim by the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 is contrary to the records. He further submits that the excerpts of the Service Book which are evidenced and indicated hereinabove has shown that at the time of bifurcation of parent State, he was getting the scale of Head Clerk Rs. 4500-7000/-, which has been arbitrarily denied by the respondent No. 2 by passing the impugned order. In the circumstances, after the allocation of the petitioner to the successor State of Jharkhand, in teeth of the Section 73 of Bihar Reorganisation Act the service condition existing prior to the bifurcation cannot be changed unilaterally without consent of the Central Government.