- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had originally approached this Court with two prayers: (a) for quashing of an office order issued under Memo No. 869 dated 15th November, 2005 (Annexure -3), whereby a punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect along with warning was imposed upon him; (b) he made a further prayer for quashing of a letter no. 4720 dated 12th December, 2005 (Annexure -4), whereby respondent no.4, District Education Officer, Ranchi, directed for recovery of alleged excess payment from the petitioner in lieu of pay protection earlier granted to him from 8th January, 1985 onwards.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not need to press the first prayer as in the appeal preferred by him against the impugned punishment aforesaid, the Appellate Authority has revoked the order of punishment vide office order contained in Memo No. 461 dated 16th February, 2010. In respect of second relief, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had originally joined on the post of Assistant Teacher in Minority School i.e. Barway High School, Chainpur in the district of Gumla and thereafter he obtained Post Graduate Trained Scale in the year 1977 and further was granted Selection Grade in the scale of Rs. 940 -1660/ - vide office order dated 7th May, 1987. In the meantime, the petitioner's services were taken over under the Act of 1981. According to the admitted position, he joined in S. S. High School, Simdega on 29th March, 1983. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the benefit of pay protection was granted to the petitioner treating his previous service under the Minority School for the purposes of counting his service as continuous vide an order contained in Annexure -1 dated 8th January, 1985 under Memo No. 122 -26, Ranchi of the same date issued under the signature of Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi. It is submitted that benefit of pay protection was granted to him after taking into account the prevalent circulars of the erstwhile Government of Bihar being Circular No. 8252 dated 21st December, 1982 and Circular No. 519 dated 2nd July, 1983. The petitioner thereafter continued to draw the scale as was fixed from time to time pursuant to the grant of pay protection to him. However, without any show cause or notice vide Annexure -4 dated 12th December, 2005, the District Education Officer, Ranchi has directed recovery of the amount paid in lieu of such pay protection from the salary of the petitioner and others purportedly in view of the direction of the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand contained in Letter No. 2801 dated 5th October, 2004 and letter no. 5900 dated 8th November, 2004. The said impugned letter has been issued on the purported ground that since the services of the petitioner was earlier in a minority school the benefit of pay protection could not be granted to him while treating his previous service under the said minority school. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment contained at Annexure -8 in W.P.(S) No. 624 of 2005 in the case of Gayatri Rundra -Vs. - The State of Jharkhand & others. She was a Trained Science Graduate Teacher of a Minority School whose services were also approved after taking over and was granted pay protection earlier, which was sought to be annulled and excess amount recovered. It is submitted that this Court quashed the said order of recovery by the judgment contained at Annexure -8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported in 2008(1) JCR 423 (Jhr.) to further buttress his contention that such pay protection cannot be recovered at such point of time after 20 years without any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and also without any show cause or notice.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents however submits that the respondents have only acted on the basis of circulars which are prevalent in the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure -4, the impugned letter whereunder the services of a teacher in minority school before taking over cannot be taken into account for treating his services continuous from the beginning as school itself was under private management. It is apparent from reading of Annexure -1 that the benefit of pay protection was granted to the petitioner pursuant to the direction of the Regional Deputy Director, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranch dated 8 th January, 1985, after taking into account the circular in vogue dated 21 st December, 1982 and 2nd July, 1983 treating his service as continuous from the previous school. Obviously, the said benefit was granted after taking over of the school and the joining of the petitioner in the S.S. High School, Simdega since the petitioner could have suffered loss of pay after his joining on 29th March, 1983 in the High School from the earlier High School where he was drawing his higher salary. The respondents allowed him to draw the salary under pay protection and consequent revision from time to time and the impugned order has been issued without any show cause or notice purportedly on the basis of a letter issued in the year 2004 -05. The petitioner obviously cannot be made to suffer as he has not misrepresented any fact and has been granted such benefit only upon the orders passed by the competent authority of the State. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner relying upon the judgments referred to hereinabove as well, the impugned order contained at Annexure -4 is quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid term.;