SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1376

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Girija Devi W/o Late Chandeshwar Prasad Singh – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 122 of 2019
Decided On : 05-05-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Devesh Krishna.
For the Respondents: Saurabh Shekhar, Anurag Kumar.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the writ court must consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including delay and laches, and whether the grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law, when exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Writ Petition - Pay Scale Dispute - Assured Career Progression Scheme - Bihar Gazette - Rs. 950-1400/-, Rs. 3050-4590/- - Court allowed condonation of delay and set aside the order granting pay scale and benefits to the petitioners.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking pay scale revision and arrears of salary. The writ court granted the petitioners' claims. The State of Jharkhand challenged the decision through a Letters Patent Appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the writ petitioners, after working for about 28 years, could not raise a claim based on an office order from 1979. The court also emphasized the duty of the writ court to consider relevant facts and circumstances, and set aside the order granting relief to the petitioners.

Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of the petitioners to a revised pay scale and arrears of salary, the duty of the writ court to consider relevant facts and circumstances, and the validity of the relief granted to the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the writ court must consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including delay and laches, and whether the grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law. The court also highlighted that a writ petition involving complex and disputed questions of facts should be satisfactorily resolved.

Final Decision: The court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal, set aside the order granting relief to the petitioners, and disposed of related applications.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 1500 of 2019

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 108 days.

2. Not only there is no serious opposition to this application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, having regard to the facts and circumstances in the case, this Court deems it proper to condone the delay of 108 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, I.A. No. 1500 of 2019 is allowed.

LPA No. 122 of 2019

3. W.P. (S) No. 6661 of 2007 was filed by Chandeshwar Prasad Singh and Pramod Singh with the following prayers:

“(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon the respondents to grant pay scale to the petitioners of the post of Dressing Assistants, the post on which the petitioners have been appointed, scale which is Rs. 950-1500/- consequent revised scale of the same is Rs. 3050-4590/-.

(ii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon the respondents to release the arrears of difference of salary from the date of their appointment on the post of Dressing Assistant because they have been paid lesser to the scale.

(iii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith give the benefit under Assured Career Progression Scheme for making revision in the pay scale i.e. in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- and to release the arrears of difference of salary along with interest.”

4. The respondent no. 1 was substituted in place of her husband Chandeshwar Prasad Singh who died during pendency of the writ petition.

5. The writ Court having considered the Bihar Gazette dated 13th February 1999 in which the post of Dressing Assistant finds place at serial no. 269 has held that the petitioners are entitled for pay-scale of Rs. 950-1400/- (revision pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-).

6. The writ Court has held as under:

“9. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalised submissions and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons:

(i) Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on 1.6.1979 vide Order No. 94 on the post of Dressing Assistants against the vacant sanctioned posts, for which the requisition has been made by the Animal Husbandry and Fishery Department and as per the extract of the Bihar Gazette, published on 13th February, 1999 it is quite evident that the reference of the post of Dressing Assistants have been given at S. No. 269 and the corresponding existing pay scale of the said post is Rs. 950-1400 and the corresponding revised scale of the same is Rs. 3050-4590 and by virtue of the fact that the petitioners have been appointed on the post of Dressing Assistant, they are entitled to get the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400/- and the corresponding revised scale of the same is Rs. 3050-4590.

10. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and as a logical sequitur, the respondents are directed to grant pay scale to the petitioners of the post of Dressing Assistants, the post on which the petitioners have been appointed, which is Rs. 950-1500/- and the consequent revised scale of which is Rs. 3050-4590/- and further directed to release the arrears of difference of salary from the date of their appointment on the post of Dressing Assistants and are further directed to give the benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme for making revision in the pay scale i.e. in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- and to release the arrears of difference of salary.

11. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.”

7. The aforesaid direction of the writ Court has been challenged by the State of Jharkhand by filing this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court.

8. A writ Court exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must remain at all times mindful of the consequen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top