BIDHU NATH ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present contempt petition has been filed in respect of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.2780 of 2006 with W.P.(S) No.4954 of 2006. In the said writ petitions, the petitioners had prayed for quashing /setting aside the Office Order, as contained in Memo No.07 Sahibganj dated 4.1.2006 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj, wherein, the pay scale of the petitioners have been reduced from Rs.4500Rs.7000/ Rs.5000Rs.8000/ to Rs.3050Rs.4590/ that is the initial pay scale drawn by the Teachers in a Primary School. After considering the facts and the circumstances involved in these writ petitions, this Court by order dated 5.4.2012, quashed and set aside the order dated 4.1.2006 and the respondent authority was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners in the light of the observations made by this Court while following the decision in the case of Sarbani Bose Versus State of Jharkhand and Ors. as decided in W.P.(S) No.5412 of 2005, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this court in L.P .A. No.400 of 2006 as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the S.L.P. preferred by the State. It was directed that before taking any decision in the matter, the authority shall provide an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent State Government has submitted that the order passed by this Court has been complied with and accordingly the Office Order has been issued giving effect to the pay scale in view of the directions given by this Court and the payment is also made to the petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent State Government while opposing this prayer has submitted that as per the Paragraph5, the respondent State Government will take appropriate steps as and when the question of grant of promotion will be considered by the respondent State Government. If the petitioners are having any grievance with regard to the fixation of seniority or induction of their names or placement of their names in the seniority, the petitioners are required to make representation indicating their proposed placement in the seniority list, and therefore, if the respondent State Government fails to consider the said representation, the present petitioner are required to file a substantive writ petition challenging the action /inaction of the State Government. It is also submitted that the grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of Annexure9 at Page 61 is concerned, the petitioners are required to file a detailed representation and thereafter if the said representation is not considered by the respondent authority, the petitioners are required to file a substantive writ petition challenging the action/ inaction of the State Government including the order at Annexure9.