IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 890 of 2018
----------
Dr. Ram Krit Singh ………. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development
Department, Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Planning & Finance
Department, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher,
Technical Education & Skill Development, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Ranchi.
5. The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi.
6. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Centralised
Pension Processing Centre, Patna.
………. Respondents.
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Resp. : Dr. Vandana Singh, Sr.SC-III
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
----------
09/ 02.01.2024 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the
opinion/ decision contained in memo No. 64, Ranchi dated 13.01.2017 and
letter No. 776, Ranchi dated 06.04.2017 (Annexures- 15 & 17 respectively)
by which petitioner has been denied revision of his pension pursuant to
recommendation of 6th PRC.
3. As per the facts of the case the petitioner appears to be appointed
afresh to the post of Principal which is evident from the appointment letter
annexed at Annexure-1/11 to the writ petition. It further appears from
perusal of para-5 of the writ petition wherein a chart has been give which
shows the initial and fresh appointment of the petitioner to the post of
Principal for the period from 01.02.1986 to 21.07.1986 and as such, he is
entitled for pay-revision which was wrongly rejected by the respondents
vide Annexures-15 & 17.
2
Challenging the said Annexures by which the petitioner has been
denied the pay-revision as per the recommendation of 6th PRC, the
petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
4. Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
vociferously argues that petitioner is entitled for the pay-revision in view of
recommendation of 6th PRC. Attention has been drawn to Clause-5(xix) of
Resolution of Science and Technology Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Ranchi as contained in memo No. 783 dated 31.03.2012 and it is submitted
that in the case of the petitioner the respondents have wrongly construed
that Clause-16 of the said Resolution is attracted whereas the same is not
attracted in the case of the petitioner. It is only Clause-5(xix) which is
attracted in the case of petitioner and thus, he is entitled for pay-revision as
per recommendation of 6th PRC.
5. On the other hand, Dr. Vandana Singh, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent-State vehemently opposing the contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that from Clause-16 of Resolution
dated 31.03.2012, it is clear that those who had not been in service from
01.01.1996 are not entitled for the pay-revision. It has been further
argued that though petitioner was appointed on 01.02.1986 to the post of
Principal but his initial appointment was on 03.01.1966 as Lecturer and
as such, appointment was prior to 05.01.1979 and he is not entitled for
pay-revision.
6. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Bank submits that it is the respondent-State who has to recommend the case
of petitioner and after recommendation, the respondent-Bank has to follow
the same and make payment as per the direction and recommendation of the
respondent-State.
7. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties across the bar, this
Court is of the considered view that petitioner is entitled for pay-revision.
The respondent-authorities have wrongly construed that the appointment of
the petitioner was made on 03.01.1966. Admittedly, petitioner was
appointed initially on 03.01.1966 to the post of Lecturer but subsequently,
3
petitioner was appointed afresh to the post of Principal on 01.02.1986
where he served the Department till 21.07.1986. From bare perusal of
Clause-16 and Clause-5(xix) it is crystal clear that petitioner is entitled for
pay-revision since appointment to the post of Principal was a fresh
appointment and cut-off date 01.01.2006 will not come in the way of
releasing and fixing pay/ pension of petitioner as per 6th PRC since
petitioner was very much entitled for the same in view of Clause-5(xix) of
the Resolution dated 31.03.2012, page – 69 to the writ petition. Since the
respondents have misconstrued the factual aspects as well as legal aspect of
the matter, the impugned orders at Annexures-15 & 17 have no leg to stand
and therefore, they are fit to be quashed and set aside.
8. Resultantly, the impugned opinion/ decision contained in memo No.
64, Ranchi dated 13.01.2017 and letter No. 776, Ranchi dated 06.04.2017
(Annexures- 15 & 17 respectively) are hereby quashed and set aside. Since
the petitioner has already superannuated in the year 2002, a fresh
calculation regarding his enhanced pensionery benefits shall be done and
whatever payment is to be made, the same shall be made within a period of
12(twelve) weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this
order. The respondent-Bank is also directed to reconsider the matter as per
the order of this Court and as per the fresh recommendation of the
respondent-State.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition
stands allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
kunal/-
