SARYU PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking a direction upon the respondents to release pension, arrears and other retiral benefits in revised payscale of Rs. 650010500/ with effect from 01.01.1996 to 30.11.1998. Order dated 27.05.2009 passed by the Finance Commissioner, Jharkhand was also assailed by the appellant in the writ proceeding. The writ petition came to be dismissed by order dated 04.10.2012 and aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in Hazaribagh Collectorate on 02.08.1965 in the payscale of Rs. 105155. The 2 appellant was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) with effect from 24.05.1976 and in the year, 1979 he was transferred to Ranchi Treasury. Before attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.1998, the appellant was given Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade also. The appellant superannuated in the payscale of Rs. 18003300/. After his retirement the appellant claimed that in view of the 'Need Based Post', he was entitled to be promoted on the post of Senior Accountant in the payscale of Rs. 650010500/. The appellant based his claim on the ground that several other persons junior to him namely, Lankeshwar Ram, Shyam Bihari Lal, Jagarnath Prasad Thakur and Kameshwar Lal Das were given payscale of Rs. 650010500/. Alternatively, the appellant claimed that even if promotion to the post of Senior Accountant is not given to him, his pay should be protected in order to avoid anomaly in his pay. During the writ proceeding, the Finance Commissioner, Jharkhand was added as partyrespondent and this Court directed the Finance Commissioner, Jharkhand to consider the claim of the appellant. By order dated 27.05.2009, the claim of the appellant was rejected by the Finance commissioner, Jharkhand and thus, the order dated 27.05.2009 was also impugned by the appellant before the writ Court.

(3.) The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding 3 that there was no material on record to support the claim of the appellant. The reliance of the appellant on Rule 37 of Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules and Rules 4, 40 and 60 of the Jharkhand Treasury Code was also found by the learned Single Judge not tenable. Taking note of the stand taken by the respondents that at a particular place a particular post has to be sanctioned in accordance with the need and no post of Senior Accountant was created in Ranchi Treasury, the writ petition was found devoid of any merit and accordingly it was dismissed.