SHASHI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court mainly with a prayer for quashing the pay fixation chart as mentioned in Form-B, issued under the signature of respondent No. 4 and also under the signature of D.S.E., Godda, which has been later on sent to the respondent No. 3 for its verification, whereby, the pay of the petitioner has been fixed at the basic of Rs.49,000/- on 14.02.2016, by reducing the same from Rs.50,500/-, whereas the petitioner is entitled for revised pay of Rs.50,500/- on 14.02.2016, on account of promotion granted to him. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in revised basic scale of Rs.50,500/-, as per recommendation of 7th Pay Commission.

(3.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher on 14.02.2004 in matric trained scale i.e. Grade-I scale, having pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000/- in 5th pay revision, which has been later on revised to the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 with G.P. Rs.4200/- in P.B-II under 6th Pay Revision. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in his entire service career no any proceeding was ever initiated against him and his service career is unblemished till today. It is the further case of the petitioner that in light of resolution dated 18.01.2017, petitioner was accordingly granted promotion from Grade-I to Grade-2 on 14.02.2016 and upon getting such promotion, petitioner is entitled for next level which is Rs.50,500/- which was granted by the respondent-authorities. But later on, surprisingly, the respondent No. 3 reduced the pay of the petitioner from Rs.50,500/- to Rs.49,000/- though one Gunadhar Singh, who is similarly situated to that of petitioner is getting the pay of Rs.50,500/-, which is glaring example of discrimination committed by the respondent-authorities. Aggrieved by the same, time and again, the petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities but no heed was paid to his said request and hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.