Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN
Manoj Kejriwal, Son of Late Murari Lal Kejriwal – Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioner seeks quashing of Office Order No. 22/Memo No. 452 dated 12.04.2014 (Annexure-6). By this order, three advance increments previously granted to him were deducted while fixing his pay on the promoted post. He claims that this action has resulted in a pay anomaly and is in contravention of Rule 78(a)(i) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Service Code.
Background Facts:
3. The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Messenger by an Office Order dated 22.01.1996 under the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board. Subsequently, he was appointed as a Junior Accounts Clerk (JAC) by another office order dated 27.07.2007 issued by the Director (Personnel), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi.
The Electricity Board introduced a scheme to incentivize employees who cleared the Departmental Examination with three advance increments in the existing scale. The Petitioner appeared for and cleared the Departmental Examination held on 20.05.2012 and was declared successful in the result published in the Office Order dated 30.05.2012.
As a result of his passing the departmental examination, the Petitioner was granted three adv
Pay protection under Bihar Service Code Rule-78 is restricted to State Government employees and not applicable to Central Government employees joining through fresh recruitment.
While Implementing scheme, difference in pay scales on account of grant of financial upgradation under old ACP Scheme (15.12.1998) under this scheme within same cadre shall not be construed as an ano....
An employee is entitled to an increment if their juniors receive a lower pay, provided no undue advantage in promotion or pay scale is claimed.
Retrospective withdrawal of accrued financial benefits under the 5th CPC without proper legislative authority violates principles of natural justice and the rule of law, affecting vested rights and e....
The proper interpretation of pay fixation rules under FR 22-B and associated rulings dictates that prior option exercised by a government servant must be adhered to, ensuring benefits are computed co....
Employees are entitled to pay protection on transfer even if the probation period is not completed, and pay reductions without notice violate natural justice.
Promotion benefits must be provided retrospectively if employees are faultless for the delay; state errors cannot obstruct rightful claims.
The tribunal reinforced the principle that a senior's pay should not be reduced to align with a junior's, maintaining the importance of fairness and equality in pay fixation.
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
