MUKESH KUMAR, SON OF LATE RAM SAGAR THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAGHNAGRI, P.O. AZIZPUR, P.S. SARAIYA, DISTRICT Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, PROJECT BHAWAN, P.O. TELEPHONE BHAWAN, P.S. JAGARNATHPUR, DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of Resolution dated 08.07.2014 whereby cadre of Accounts Clerk has been de-merged and pay-scale fixed on the basis of date of appointment, however, Correspondence Clerks have not been given pay-scale at par with Upper Division Clerk(Accounts)/Senior Accounts Clerk, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) Heard.

(3.) The petitioner, who was appointed on compassionate ground on 06.04.2000 on a Class-III post, was posted at Minor Irrigation Division, Dumka between 06.04.2000 to 09.06.2006 and thereafter he was transferred to Minor Irrigation Division, Jamtara, where he continued till 09.10.2014. He was transferred and now posted at Minor Irrigation Circle, Dumka on 10.10.2014. Claim of the petitioner is that Correspondence Clerks and Accounts Clerks both were in the same pay-scale however, on de-merger of Accounts Clerk the Correspondence Clerks are not placed in pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000.00. It is pleaded that the petitioner should also be paid the pay-scale of Upper Division Clerk(Accounts)/Senior Accounts Clerk. It appears that Minor Irrigation Employees' Association represented before Pay Anomaly Appellate Committee, which found that though Correspondence Clerk and Accounts Clerk were initially in the same pay-scale, after the de-merger in 1981 the scale of Correspondence Clerk was brought down with effect from 01.01.1986. The Accounts Clerks were placed in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300.00 whereas, the Correspondence Clerks were placed in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-1800.00. The report of the Pay Anomaly Appellate Committee reflects that post of Correspondence Clerk is not mentioned in the list of posts in the Fitment Committee report or in F.D. Resolution No.660 dated 08.02.1999 of the Water Works Department. It was observed that employees were perhaps employed as Correspondence Clerk, however, the Fitment Committee treated them as any other Clerk in the Mufassil office. The report of Pay Anomaly Appellate Committee records that the Association could not prove that the post of Correspondence Clerk carries responsibility not similar to the post of Clerk. Accordingly, the claim for payment in a higher pay-scale than Clerk was declined. The respondent-State has pleaded that the report of Pay Anomaly Appellate Committee is binding on it. Insofar as, Resolution dated 08.07.2014 is concerned, it relates to the cadre of Accounts Clerk and no decision in respect of the Correspondence Clerks has been taken by the State Government. Merely because initially the Accounts Clerks and the Correspondence Clerks were placed in the same pay-scale, after de-merger of the cadre of Accounts Clerk into Lower Division Accounts Clerk and the Upper Division Accounts Clerk, the petitioner cannot claim pay-scale which is given to the Upper Division Accounts Clerk. The claim for payment of travelling allowances has also been disputed by the respondents stating that the bills were submitted in contravention of Notification dated 17.09.2014. Detail of T.A. bills has been given in paragraph no.11 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 7 to 9.The respondents have disclosed that T.A bills for March, 2015 and June, 2015 have been rejected, however, other bills have been cleared to the extent it is admissible.