Shatrughan Prasad Singh And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, learned S.C. (L & C)-III for the State.

The petitioners are coming to this Court for quashing the final gradation list dated 16.12.2008 with a further prayer to fix the seniority of the petitioners above the Respondent Nos. 4 to 8.

Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners are senior to Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 but they are kept below in the gradation list. He further submits that the petitioners have already filed an objection and it was not being decided and during the pendency of this writ petition the objection petition of the petitioners have been decided, whereby the claim of the petitioners have been rejected. That order has been challenged by filing the amendment petition in the present writ petition, which is allowed by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2017. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha argues that placing the petitioners below Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in the gradation list is arbitrary, illegal and also amounts to non-application of mind. The respondents have not considered the legal aspect of the matter and in a mechanical way passed the order by rejecting the objection of the petitioners.

Mr. Toppo, learned S.C. (L&C)-III appearing for the State, submits that the Original Gradation List was prepared by the State of Bihar, which has not been challenged by the petitioners. After bifurcation of the State, a Provisional Gradation List dated 22.7.2004 was published, which has been challenged by the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 4596 of 2005, which was dismissed as it was found that the writ petition was premature. Thereafter, the final gradation list dated 16.12.2008 has been published which has been challenged by these petitioners in this writ petition and during the pendency of the writ petition, the objection as aforesaid has also been decided against the petitioners.

That order has been challenged by the petitioners by filing an amendment petition, which is allowed by this Court.

Mr. Toppo, on behalf of State further submits that Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 have been directly appointed as Fisheries Extension Officers vide Office Order dated 13.12.1994 in the already existing posts. After their training, they were posted in different district vide Office Order dated 10.5.1995. Later on, in the light of the Government circular dated 21.10.1995, 48 posts of Fisheries Inspector in the pay-scale of 1400-2600 were surrendered and 48 posts of Fisheries Extension Officer in the pay-scale of 1640-2900 were created. Vide order dated 23.11.1995 (Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit), the incumbents (present petitioners) working as Fisheries Inspector in the pay-scale of 1400-2600 were ordered to be absorbed in the cadre of Fisheries Extension Officer with effect from 01.3.1995 with a condition precedent that the seniority of them shall be below the Fisheries Extension Officers already working on the said post and admittedly, the Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are working in the Department as Fisheries Extension Officer from 13.12.1994.

At this stage, Mr. Sinha pointed out that he has also challenged the order dated 23.11.1995 in this case.

It appears that the petitioners have accepted the merger of the cadre of Fisheries Inspector and Fisheries Extension Officer accepting the clause therein and challenging the order of such merger belatedly before this Court.

Mr. Sinha further refers to the existing seniority rules from the Laws of Appointment, Seniority, Promotion, Transfer and Posting, particularly Rule 7 which speaks as under:

"(vii) In the event of amalgamation of cadres seniority is determined with reference to the date of appointment in the particular grade on substantive or continuous officiating basis, whichever is earlier. But inter-se seniority of incumbents in any group of posts as amongst themselves is not to be disturbed in the process of amalgamation."

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the cadre of Fisheries Inspector has been merged with the cadre of Fisheries Extension Officer with condition precedent that the seniority of the new Fisheries Extension Officers shall be kept below the persons who are already working as Fisheries Extension Officer.

Referring to supplementary affidavit Mr. Sinha further submits that the petitioners' services have been merged with the Fisheries Extension Officer prior to 28.9.1994, whereas Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 have been appointed on the same post on 13.12.1994 and the respondent authorities rejected the objection without considering this fact and therefore, the order dated 6.6.2015, by which the objections of the petitioners have been rejected, is fit to be quashed.

The factual aspect as to whether the petitioners were brought in the cadre before 13.12.1994 or no needs to be examined by the concerned authorities.

Consequently, order dated 6.6.2015, rejecting the objection of the petitioner, is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to decide afresh in the light of the observations made in this order on the receipt/production of a copy of this order within 8 weeks' from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

It goes without saying that while deciding the claim of the petitioners the authority concerned will also hear Respondent Nos. 4 to

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Let a copy of the order be handed over to Mr. J.F. Toppo, S.C. (L & C)-III.