MRITUNJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. Petitioners are Veterinary doctors of 1994 batch of Animal Husbandry Department who have raised a grievance that they should be granted parity in pay scale with 1995 batch of Veterinary doctors of their department in accordance with the Fundamental Rule -22.

(2.) ACCORDING to them, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand had notified the ACP Scheme vide resolution 5207 dated 14.08.2002 and MACP Scheme vide resolution No. 660 dated 28.02.2009. Implementation of the MACP scheme has resulted in anomaly as the petitioners belonging to 1994 batch, have been getting lower scale of pay. Petitioners in their writ petition have also referred to the provisions of Clause -6.1 of the MACP Scheme dated 01.09.2008 where -under, a provision has been made for the employees for getting their pay fixed under the 6th Pay Revision implemented with effect from 01.01.2006. This condition was specifically in respect of persons who could have been the beneficiaries of ACP Scheme between 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2008 i.e. till the date of implementation of the MACP Scheme. As per the Scheme, which is not in dispute, petitioners herein belonging to 1994 batch, exercised the second option. The ACP scheme of 2002 is annexed as Annexure -B to the counter affidavit of the respondent -Accountant General and the relevant part of the MACP dated 01.09.2009 along with its Appendix -1 which contains the provisions of Clause -6.1 has been also annexed as Annexure -A to the same counter affidavit. The first option under Clause -6.1 provides that the incumbents exercising the same, would get the benefits of pay fixation with effect from 01.01.2006 on the basis of their pre -revised pay. Those exercising the second option would get their pay fixed in their pre -revised scale along with the ACP benefits from the date they are entitled and conferred the ACP benefit. Upon those exercising the second option, arrears of salary pursuant to such pay fixation upon grant of ACP, would be paid from the date of such fixation. Petitioners, as indicated herein, has exercised the second option and many of those belonging to the 1995 batch have reportedly exercised the first option.

(3.) IN this factual background, and in relation to the provisions of MACP Scheme, which is not under challenge by the petitioners, it is well settled proposition that such principles of pay fixation and grant of financial up -gradation are framed on the advice of the fiscal experts and are related to the financial matters. Provisions of such scheme are neither under challenge in the present writ application. Apparently, the scheme itself provides for two options and the petitioners vis -a -vis 1995 batch officers exercised their option on their own volition without any compulsion. It also appears that for certain period, petitioners got higher pay than those of 1995 batch officers, but because of grant of ACP in March 2007, officers of 1995 batch exercising the second option, consequently got slightly higher pay fixation thereupon.