MURARI LAL SAH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, by way of this writ application, have prayed for direction upon the respondents to grant and pay forthwith the annual increment to the petitioners and for further direction commanding upon the respondents to grant arrears in respect to the annual increments.

(2.) The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners were appointed as Warden on ad-hoc basis on various dates in the year 1984 and appointment was made subject to the final approval by the Selection Committee. The petitioners were transferred and posted at different places and petitioner no. 1 was posted at District Jail, Giridih, petitioner no. 2 was posted at Sub Jail, Rajmahal (Sahebganj), petitioner no. 3 was posted at District Jail, Deoghar and petitioner no. 4 was posted at Central Jail, Dumka. The Jail Superintendent, Bhagalpur passed an order dated 16.01.1994 for regularizing the services of the Wardens, wherein, the name of the petitioners were also figured. The Inspector-General of Police constituted a selection committee comprising of 03 members, which examined the matter in detail and found certain irregularities in the order dated 16.01.1994 for confirming the service of 38 Wardens and the said Committee in its speaking order directed the petitioners to appear before the Selection Committee again, which was challenged by the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 998 of 1997, wherein, the Hon'ble Patna High Court, passed an order dated 07.08.1998, saying that the petitioners have to appear before the selection committee and the same cannot be refused on the ground that the petitioners were in the service for the past 15 years and as such, some certain relaxation shall be given to the petitioners and in pursuance thereof, the selection Committee for the appointment of the Warden was fixed on 15.12001 and vide letter dated 11.12001, the petitioners were asked to appear before the said Selection Committee on 16.12001 so that the Selection Committee could take up the matter of their appointment. The petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee, which is evident from the order dated 17.12001, passed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhagalpur and also the order dated 23.12001. It has been further stated that the petitioners have time and again in year 2007-08 written several representations to the concerned authorities stating therein that till date they have not been provided any annual increment in the income for the past 25 years of their service and the petitioners have not been given any increment in their salary but no heed was paid upon their grievances. Vide office order dated 18.01.1994 issued by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Bhagalpur, the service of the petitioners were regularized with a further direction to provide annual increment in their income, but unfortunately the increased income benefits was withdrawn by the respondents authorities arbitrarily without giving any notice to the petitioners which is gross violation of principle of natural justice, as the petitioners have been devoid of the benefit of which they are legally entitled for. It has been further stated that on 14.10.2008, the Superintendent of Jail, Sahebganj issued a letter in favour of one of the petitioners, stating therein, that the petitioner is not getting annual increment and requested to consider the case, as he is working since long and recommended the same to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Dumka. Time and again, the petitioners have been sent for training at various places and they have excelled in all such training and the petitioners for the past 25 years have been serving on the post of Warden and obeying all rules and regulations, but despite their sincere and devoted work, they have not been given any increment. The petitioners, left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, have been constrained to knock the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has assiduously submitted that the respondents authorities are bound to consider that the petitioners, who are working for approximately 25 years on the same income/salary, are entitled for annual increment and the respondents authorities can not deny for not providing the annual increment to the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondents authorities is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to and relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and others-vs.-State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2018) AIR SC 23