- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) Petitioner's representation for grant of higher scale of pay under the 6th Pay Revision implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1996 vide Finance Department Resolution dated 8.2.1999 has been rejected by the impugned order contained in memo No. 1246 dated 15.6.2005 (Annexure-6). Petitioner, who is a Draftsmen posted in the Settlement Office at Ranchi had earlier preferred a writ petition being W.P.S. No. 2454 of 2002 for fixation of proper scale of pay in terms of the recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Committee. The writ petition was disposed of on 6.4.2004 vide Annexure-4 with a direction to the Secretary cum Commissioner, Land Record and Survey Department, Ranchi to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner. The Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, after considering the representation of the petitioner passed an order dated 1.10.2004, Annexure-5 asking him to prefer a representation before the Secretary, Finance Department, Jharkhand as it was the said department which was competent to take a decision on his claim. The impugned order has been passed thereafter by the Secretary, Finance Department-Respondent No. 3.
(3.) The petitioner's claim is based upon the assertion that under the 4th Pay Revision he was drawing the scale of Rs. 680-965 while the Surveyors were drawing the sale of Rs. 560-860 i.e. lower to them. Under the 5th Pay Revision also petitioner was drawing the scale of Rs. 1320-2040, which was higher than the scale given to the Surveyor i.e. 1200-1800. It is further contention of the petitioner that under the 6th Central Pay Revision recommendation the scale of Rs. 5000-8000 has been given to the Surveyors under the Central Government and a replacement scale of Rs. 4500-7000 for those who were there in the pre - revised scale of Rs. 1320-2040. However the State Government chose to grant the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to the petitioner and others who belong to the cadre of Draftsmen in the Land Revenue and Records Department. Upon such fixation of scale petitioner and other Draftsman are placed at par with the Surveyor of the same department, who were all along in lower scale of pay earlier. It is further submitted that the Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department in his order dated 1.10.2004 took into account this disparity and observed that Draftsman were enjoying higher scale of pay under the 4th and 5th Pay Revision than that of the Surveyors. However, instead of accepting the petitioner's claim, he was relegated to the Finance Secretary to take a decision on his claim. The Finance Secretary, however has simply rejected the claim of the petitioner based upon the decision of the Fitment Committee as well as Fitment Appellate Committee constituted by the State Government who have not found any error in the fixation of scale of Draftsmen in the Basic Grade.;