Ravendra Prasad Das vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority (JMADA)

Deepak Roshan

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

“i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to release forthwith to him the corrected/revised  scale  of  Rs.  2,000-3,800  to  Rs.  2,200-4,000  and  from  Rs. 6,500-10,500 to Rs. 8,000-13,500 and benefit of first ACP Scale of Rs. 10,000-15,2000 recommended by screening committee, found petitioner eligible, along with statutory and penal interest.

ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) commanding  upon  the  respondents  to  pay  the  dues  of  the  petitioner  along with statutory and penal interest as hereunder:-

a. Difference amount of pay scale Rs. 2,000-3,800 to Rs. 2,200-4,000 from March 1989-February 2001 i.e. Rs.-40,100/-.

b. Difference amount of 6th Pay revision from January 2003-October 2003 i.e. Rs. 3,000/-.

c. Difference amount of 6th Pay revision pay scale Rs. 6,500-10,500 to revised pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500 from March 2007 to July 2010 i.e. Rs. 1,12,000/-

d. Difference amount of 15t ACP  from 08.03.2001 to July 2010 as per screening committee held on 17.09.2009 i.e. Rs. 61451800/-.

e. P. F. amount with contribution of authority i.e. Rs. 2,00,226/-.

f. 7th revised pay, arrear with new amended gratuity difference amount applicable at the time of retirement-Dues.

g. Interest on P.F. and other dues.-Dues.

iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) order(s), direction(s) for quashing the order dated 08.09.2018 contained in the letter No.1999 dated 11.09.2018 (Annexure-7) issued by the Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Development Authority whereby and whereunder the claim of the Petitioner seeking fixation of his pay scale in the scale of Rs 10,000-15,000 has been rejected.

And

For issuance of any other appropriate Writ(s)/order(s) / direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.”

Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as Horticulture Supervisor on 08.03.1977. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.05.1981 contained in Letter  No.  14/81 issued by the  respondent,  he was promoted as  Horticulture  Officer  in  the  scale  of  Rs.  1000-1820/-  and  the  same  was revised to Rs. 2000-3800/- and subsequently to Rs. 6500-10500/- after the 6th Pay Revision.

Thereafter, a letter was issued by the respondents wherein pay scale  of  employees working  in  the  scale  of  Rs.  2000-3800  was  revised  to Rs.  2200-4000/-  and  consequently  ACP was  also  revised  in  the  pay  scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- with effect from 01.01.1996 and the employees were made entitled to such benefits with effect from 01.03.2007. Further Horticulture Officer has been classified  as Category-II employee with pay scale of Rs. 1000-1820/-.

On 26.06.2008, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent authority seeking revision of his pay scale. Similarly situated Category-II employees were granted the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP on completion of 12 and 24 years. On 08.02.2009, the petitioner again preferred a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad seeking redressal  of his  grievance; however,  an  order has  been passed by the respondents on 11.09.2018 rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking revision of his pay scale.  Being aggrieved of the action of the respondent authority, the petitioner has filed the instant writ application.

Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  submits  that  petitioner  has been  promoted  to  the post  of  Horticulture  Officer,  since  then  he  has  been working  on  stagnant  scale  as  such  under  the  Assured  Carrer  Progression Scheme, he is entitled to 1st Financial Progression on completion of 12 years of service and again on completion of 24 years of service 2nd ACP, whereas; the screening committee has recommended for providing 1st ACP on completion of 24 years of service with effect from 08.03.2001 and the same is wholly against the provision of ACP scheme and the petitioner has illegally been deprived from benefits of 2nd ACP.

He further submits that other similarly situated Category-II employees have been provided 2nd ACP by the respondents and their scale has been fixed on providing benefit of ACP Rs. 12000-16500/-whereas the petitioner’s scale has been fixed under the scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/-.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner  is  a  Category-II  officer  of  JMADA but  this  classification  is  not as per Class II in the notification of the State Government.

Having  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  after  going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits it appears that  both  the  Horticulture  Officer  as  well  as  Assistant  Engineer  have  the same  initial  pay  scale  of  Rs.  1000-1820/-  as  is  evident  from  Annexure-3. However, the Assistant Engineers who were having the same pay scale are getting higher pay scale; whereas the petitioner even after promotion is not getting the same pay scale.

On 26.06.2008, a representation was preferred by the petitioner for revision of his pay scale at par with that of Assistant Engineer and Personal Officer on the ground that all of them belong to Class-2  post  at  JMADA.  However,  nothing  had  happened  and  finally  the petitioner retired on 31.07.2010.

A counter affidavit has been filed in this case bringing on record the order dated 11.09.2018 whereby the case of the petitioner seeking  revision  of pay  scale  has  been  rejected.  The said order was made impugned subsequently by way of filing interlocutory application. The case of the respondents which is apparent from the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 02.07.2025  pursuant to the order passed by this Court  is that the petitioner was appointed on Class-III post and subsequently promoted to Class-II post; whereas the petitioner is seeking parity with those employees who were directly employed as Class-II officer, therefore the pay scale of directly employed Class-II officer is higher and has to be higher than that of the petitioner who became Class-II officer after promotion.

In other words, the only stand of the respondent-JMADA  is that  the  persons/employees  who  were  directly  appointed  on  Class-II  post cannot be equated with the petitioner who joined on Class-II post after promotion and that is the reason the other employees which have been referred by the petitioner cannot be equated with him.

This issue was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in“Kamlakar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.” (1999) 4 SCC 756 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court  at  paragraph  no.  12  has  categorically  held  that  once  direct  recruits and promotees are in one cadre, the distinction between them disappears at any rate so far  as equal  treatment in  the  same cadre for payment  of  pay scale given is concerned. The birthmarks have no relevance in this connection. For brevity paragraph no. 12 of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:

“12. We have considered the limited issue. We are of the view that all these appellants should get the same relief as the appellants in the civil appeal which arose out of Special Leave Petition No. 16646 of 1995. Once they were all in one cadre, the distinction between direct recruits and promotees disappears at any rate so far as equal treatment in the same cadre for payment of the pay scale given is concerned. The birthmarks have no relevance in this connection. If any distinction is made on the question of their right to the post of Data Processing Assistants they were holding and to its scale- which were matters common to all of them before the impugned order of the Government of India was passed on 2-7-1990, - then any distinction between Data Processing Assistants who were direct recruits and those who  were promotees, is  not permissible.  We,  therefore,  reject the respondents' contention. We have examined the record and the common points arising in this case and those in civil appeal which arose out of Special Leave Petition No. 16646 of 1995 and we are unable to find any lawful distinction between the appellants and those in the other appeal which has been allowed.”

With regard to giving equal pay scale to the petitioner with that of Assistant Engineer and Personal Officer, learned counsel for the respondent-JMADA  categorically submits that the petitioner became the Horticulture Officer after promotion and the Assistant Engineer and Personal Officer were the direct employees and that is the reason there is a difference in pay scale.

Admittedly, both Assistant Engineer and Personal Officer are Class-II post and the Horticulture Officer also belongs to Class-II post. Thus,  there  is  no  difference  between  the  Assistant  Engineer and  Personal Officer with that of Horticulture Officer as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that once direct recruits and promotees are in one cadre; the distinction between them disappears and the birthmarks have no relevance;

Having regard to the aforesaid dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court,  the  impugned  order  dated  11.09.2018 contained  in  Letter  No.  199 rejecting the claim of the petitioner of higher pay scale with that of the Assistant Engineer and Personal Officer, is hereby, quashed and set aside.

It  is held that the petitioner is  entitled  for the same pay scale what  is  being  given  to  the  other  Class-II  Officer  who  have  been  directly recruited like that of Assistant Engineer and Personal Officer. Accordingly, the  respondents  are  directed  to  calculate  the  difference  of  salary  and  pay the same within  a period  of 12 weeks  from  the date  of  receipt/production of copy of this order.

The instant writ application stands allowed.

Pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of.