Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN
Dilip Kumar Sinha, son of Lt. Harihar Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Roshan, J.
Since common issue is involved in both these writ petitions; as such, both were heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In W.P.(S) No. 5216 of 2012 the petitioners have made the following prayers:
“i) Quashing the office order dated 14-06-2012 issued by the Director Industries, Jharkhand, Ranchi in terms of which the order no. 964 dated 09-04-2006 and order no. 1625 dated 17-07-2006 and order no. 88 dated 15-01-2007 has been modified and the benefit of A.C.P. granted to Industries Extension Officers by placing them in pay scale of 6500-10500 has been reduced to pay scale of 5500-9000 and direction for recovery of alleged excess payment has been issued;
ii) Upon quashing the office order dated 14-06-2012 issued by the Director Industries, Jharkhand, Ranchi be further pleased to hold that the Industry Extension Officers are entitled to the pay scale of 6500-10500 consequent to grant of benefit of 1st A.C.P.;
iii) Further, for a direction upon the respondents to pass an order of confirmation of benefit of 1st A.C.P. of the petitioners and release the arrears of salary of the petitioners which has been withheld on account of non- confirma
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.
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.
The court upheld the entitlement of Mining Inspectors for Assured Career Progression benefits, emphasizing that arbitrary changes in pay scales were illegal and lacked justification.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that pay scale rationalization should be ignored for the purpose of the first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, based on the application ....
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....
The court ruled that employees who have not received promotions are entitled to ACP-II and MACP-III benefits, despite clarifications suggesting otherwise.
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
