Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN
Ram Nakshatra Singh @ Ram Nakshatra Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred for following reliefs:
i. For issuance of an appropriate writ (s), order (s), rule (s), direction (s) or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office Order No. 50 dated 19/11/2018 bearing Memo No. 2415 dated 19/11/2018 (Annexure-7 to the writ application) whereby and where under the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi, Respondent No 3 while deciding the claim of the Petitioner in the light of direction given by the Hon'ble Court passed in W. P. (S) No. 4849/2013 dated 13/08/2018 has rejected the claim of the Petitioner in erroneous ground although the Petitioner is first entitled for fixation of pay scale equivalent Forester in the scale of Rs580-860 with effect from 18/07/1987 i.e. from the date of appointment/joining like Md. Ali Raza and accordingly Petitioner is entitled for 1 A.C.P. in the scale of Rs5500-9000/- with effect from 09/08/1999 on account of completion of 12 years of service under A.C.P. Resolution Memo NO. 2446 dated 17/11/2012) Annexure-11) issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary Finance Department, Government of
Extraordinary leave/leave without pay not break in service for ACP/MACP absent specific rule; post-judicial directive denial on new unproven allegations without proceedings is mala fide and invalid.
Industry Extension Officers, as feeder cadre to Project Manager under Cadre Rules, entitled to 1st ACP in Rs.6500-10500 scale; order reducing to Rs.5500-9000 relying on deleted Finance Resolution cla....
Authorities have discretion to correct financial discrepancies in pay, yet wrongful promotions may negate claims for additional benefits like A.C.P. confirmations.
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible unless circumstances warranting such recovery exist, as reinforced by Supreme Court precedents.
Recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible when based on incorrect administrative entries, particularly concerning increments due to extraordinary leave.
Quashing of punishment has retrospective effect; employee gets promotion and financial benefits from juniors' promotion dates when delay due to employer's fault; 'no work no pay' inapplicable; incomp....
Past service should be counted for ACP/MACP benefits if it has been protected under pension rules, irrespective of pay grade changes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law in force at the time of eligibility for financial upgradations shall govern the entitlement of the employee, and there are limitations....
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
