SHARAFAT ALI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following directions commanding upon the respondents: -

(2.) The factual aspects, as has been delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell are that from the proceeding dated 17.04.2005, it will be evident, that the Committee constituted for considering the case of the petitioner, recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of scale of Rs.240-396/- from the appointment, which will be evident from the letter dated 25.06.2006 (Annexure-5), obtained under the RTI Act. From bare perusal of the entire Minute of the proceeding, it transpires that the respondents have admitted that the fault has been committed and petitioner has been wrongly given the scale of Rs.220- 315/- and have rectified the mistake so committed by the respondents and accordingly they have recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of said scale but till date, in spite of the recommendation, no order has been made. From the letter dated 21.02.2009 (Annexure-6), it is quite evident that the respondents after thorough enquiry and verification submitted its report and recommended the case of the petitioner as per the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer in favour of the petitioner, but all in vein. It is crystal clear from the letter dated 23.07.2010 (Annexure-7), obtained under the Right to Information Act, that the service book of the petitioner has been called for, for deciding the seniority, but, thereafter, no order has been passed in spite of the recommendation made by the superior authority as well as enquiry committee who submitted its report after making enquiry in favour of the petitioner. It has been averred in the writ application that from the letter dated 10.12.2003 (Annexure-8), it is manifest that it has been taken into consideration that the person below in the merit list has been given scale of Rs.240-396/-, whereas, the petitioner being at serial no. 11, has been refused and given pay scale of Rs.220-315/- to the post of routine clerk, whereas, one Arbind Kumar was appointed in the Scale of Rs.240-396/-. Vide letter dated 13.01.2006 (Annexure-9), though the case of the petitioner was recommended in view of the Committee, so constituted on 16.12.2005 but such recommendation remained unattended to. In view of the order dated 14.11.2011, passed in the main writ application, the respondents ought to have given the seniority and scale to the petitioner as per their own recommendations, but without referring and discussing Annexures-5, 6 7 and 8, rejected the claim of the petitioner on altogether different point vide order dated 8.8.2012 (Annexure-13) which is impugned in the instant writ petition. It has been averred that the person junior to the petitioner has been given the benefit of seniority as well as scale, which has also come up in the order dated 14.11.2011 and that have also not been discussed. Further it has been averred that similarly placed 15 employees have been given the benefit and their panel has been constituted vide letter dated 24.07.1980 (Annexrure-14). In similar circumstances, being aggrieved by the act of the respondents, one Arti Mitra Nee Das has moved before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 161 of 2002 and this Court vide order dated 21.04.2009 (Annexure-15) has quashed the order of the respondents and consequently, vide order dated 10.12.2009 (Annexure-15/1), the respondents have restored her position. The petitioner has made representation ventilating his grievances, which has fallen on the deaf ears of the respondents. The petitioner left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy has been constrained to approach this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the respondents authority suo motu cannot change the scale of the petitioner and force him to get appointment in the scale of Rs.220-315/- and the respondents authority are duty bound to consider the fact that as per the merit list, the petitioner's case ought to have been considered in the scale of Rs.240-396/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order dated 21.04.2009 (Annexure-15), passed in W.P. (S) No. 161 of 2002, has submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court has quashed the order therein, and consequently, the respondents have restored the position of the petitioner, therein. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court, dated 06.11.2009 rendered in the case of The State of Jharkhand and others-versus-Arun Sinha and others in L.P.A. No. 214 of 2008 with L.P.A. Nos. 295 and 319 of 2008.