Prabha Bhaduri vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the appellant writ petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State.

The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 07.04.2017, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No.1268 of 2008, whereby

the claim of the petitioner for fixation of her salary in the pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000, with effect from 01.04.1997, was dismissed by the Writ Court.

The appellant writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Music Teacher, in the pay-scale of Rs.296-423, which was equivalent to I.A. Trained Pay

Scale. Ultimately, before the revision in the pay scales, which is in question in this appeal, she was given the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 with regular

increments, though it is the claim of the respondent State that she was not entitled to that pay scale, rather she was entitled to pay scale of Rs.1400-

2300 at the relevant time. There is however, nothing on record to show that the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600, given to the writ petitioner was ever

withdrawn by the State Government, so that the Writ petitioner could have got the opportunity to challenge the same. Admittedly, only at the time of

re-fixation of salary upon the revision of the pay scales, her salary was fixed in the reduced pay scale of Rs.4,500-7,000, which was admittedly, not

the replacement pay scale of Rs.1400-2600, on which she was working. According to the appellant writ petitioner, she was entitled to get her salary in

the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 w.e.f. 01.04.1997, which was admittedly the replacement pay scale of Rs.1400-2600. Accordingly, she moved this

Court in W.P.(S) No.1268 of 2008, claiming the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, w.e.f. 01.04.1997, as is apparent from the writ petition and the impugned

Judgment dated 07.04.2017, passed by the Writ Court, dismissing the writ application on the ground that the pay scale of music teachers was

separately fixed by the State Government, and accordingly, she was not entitled to the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the Writ Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law,

inasmuch as, the Writ Court has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was not entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600, rather she was

only entitled to pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 and she had been given the replacement scale of the same. Learned counsel submitted that her pay scale

was never reduced to Rs.1400-2300, and accordingly, the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for the respondent State on the other hand, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the Writ Court,

inasmuch as, at the relevant time the appellant writ petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 only, as per the pay scale of music

teachers separately fixed by the State Government, and not to the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600, but she had been wrongly given the pay scale of

Rs.1400-2600. Accordingly, at the time of pay revision, she was given the replacement pay scale of Rs.1400-2300, to which only she was legally

entitled to, and accordingly, there is no illegality in her fixation of the pay scale. However, it is an admitted fact that the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600,

which was allowed to the Writ petitioner, was never recalled, or reduced by the State Government to the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300.

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned Judgment, we find that since it is an admitted fact that

appellant writ petitioner was getting the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600, for all practical purposes, she was entitled to the replacement pay scale of the

same, which was admittedly Rs.5000-8000. The pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 was never recalled or reduced by the State Government, giving an

opportunity to the writ petitioner to challenge the same. As such, the writ petitioner worked in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 till she got the

replacement pay scale of Rs.1400-2300, which she challenged without any delay before the respondent authorities, but her grievances were never

redressed. It is also an admitted fact that even at the time of re-fixation of her salary in the lower pay scale, she was not given any opportunity of

hearing. It is also an admitted position that the appellant writ petitioner has since superannuated from service in the year 2008 itself, meaning thereby,

that as on date she is more than seventy years old.

Since the earlier pay scale of the appellant was never recalled and she continued to get her salary in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 till the pay scale

was revised, we are of the considered view that she was entitled only to the replacement pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 which could not have been

denied to her, unless her earlier pay scale was revised giving an opportunity to her to challenge the same. That having not been done, the replacement

pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 could not have been denied to the appellant and she was legally entitled to the same. This aspect of the matter has not

been considered by the Hon'ble Single Judge in the impugned Judgment, and accordingly, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Judgment dated 07.04.2017, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in W.P. (S) No.1268 of 2008, is hereby,

set aside. The respondent State is directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 to the appellant, w.e.f. 01.04.1997, as claimed by her, and to

calculate her arrears of salary and retiral benefits on the basis thereof. The respondent State is directed to complete the exercise within the period of

six months from the date of communication of the order, and to make the payments of arrears to the petitioner, within the aforesaid period, failing

which, the appellant shall be entitled to the interest @ 6% per annum, on any delay of payment after the period of six months as aforesaid.

This L.P.A is accordingly, allowed with the directions as above.