Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ravi Ranjan, Sujit Narayan Prasad, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand - Ranchi - Appellant
Versus
Arun Kumar Sinha, S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Prasad - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 622 of 2018 With I.A. No. 4963 of 2020 With I.A. No. 5802 of 2020
Decided On : 28-07-2021
Interlocutory Application - Substitution of respondent - I.A. No. 4963 of 2020, I.A. No. 5802 of 2020 - The court allowed the substitution of respondent no. 4 and the filing of a supplementary affidavit by the appellants-State.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners, who were appointed as Copying Clerk/Remunerative Nakal Navis/Pratilipik Lipik under the respondents-State, filed a writ petition claiming entitlement to a higher pay-scale and benefits under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. The writ Court allowed the writ petition, directing the State-authorities to grant the benefits. The appellants-State filed an intra-court appeal against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petitioners were not entitled to the pay-scale and benefits they claimed, as the recommendations of the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee were not implemented by the State. The court held that the writ petitioners had not challenged the relevant decisions of the State-authorities and, therefore, could not claim the benefits through writ jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the writ petitioners were entitled to a higher pay-scale and benefits under the ACP Scheme based on the recommendations of the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decisions of expert bodies like the Pay Commission are not ordinarily subject to judicial review in the matter of pay-scale fixation. Since the writ petitioners had not challenged the relevant decisions of the State-authorities, they could not claim the benefits through writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the order of the writ Court, allowing the intra-court appeal and dismissing the writ petition.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter was done through video conferencing and there was no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.
I.A. No. 4963 of 2020
2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of the respondents for substitution of respondent no. 4-Vyas Deo Pandey @ Vyas Dev Pandey who is stated to have died on 03.07.2019 during pendency of the instant appeal.
3. From perusal of record, it appears for the self-same prayer, earlier I.A. No. 4889 of 2020 was filed by the respondents, which was allowed vide order 21.09.2020 and the name of respondent no. 4-Vyas Deo Pandey @ Vyas Dev Pandey was directed to be expunged from the array of respondents and his heirs and legal representatives, as described in paragraph 6 of the substitution petition, were directed to be substituted in his place.
4. In compliance thereof, name of respondent no. 4 has been expunged and in his place his legal heirs have been substituted, as such the present Interlocutory Application has become infructuous.
5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 4963 of 2020 stands disposed of.
I.A. No. 5802 of 2020
6. This Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of the appellants-State seeking leave of this Court to file supplementary affidavit bringing on record certain documents.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants-State submitted that certain resolutions, letters and orders related to the pay-scales, revised pay-scales, time bound promotion and Assured Career Progression of the respondents-writ petitioners are required to be brought on record for better appreciation of the case at hand as the same are corresponding rules, regulations related to the service condition of the respondents-writ petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners though have filed reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents-appellants but does not raised serious objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the respondents-appellants.
9. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and to meet the ends of justice, the instant Interlocutory Application is allowed and the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants-State, annexing therewith certain documents, is permitted to be part of memo of appeal.
10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5802 of 2020 stands allowed.
L.P.A. No. 622 of 2018
11. This intra-court appeal is preferred against the order/judgment dated 14.05.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2191 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the writ Court while allowing the writ petition quashed the decision of the authority, as contained in Memo No. 297 dated 01.04.2005, pertaining to wrong fixation of pay-scale and grant of benefits of up-gradation in pay-scale by way of Assured Career Progression (in short ‘ACP’) Scheme on the reduced pay-scale; and respondents-authorities were directed to pass appropriate order for placing the writ petitioners in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and accordingly grant Time Bound Promotion/Assured Career Progression within a stipulated period of time.
12. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under:
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
