H.C.MISHRA,J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'RIADA').
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Development Officer in RIADA on 24.9.1979 in the pay scale of Rs. 1060-1582/-. The petitioner claimed parity with the post of Deputy Director of Industries, in the Government of Jharkhand, as the post of the Development Officer in RIADA and the post of Deputy Director of Industries in the Government of Jharkhand were carrying the same pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500/- at one point of time. The Pay Anomaly Committee constituted pursuant to the implementation of the 5th Pay Revision, recommended the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- to the post of Deputy Director of Industries, which was also implemented. The petitioner, claiming that the post being held by him was equivalent to the post of Deputy Director of Industries, filed writ application being W.P.S. No.6068 of 2002 in this Court claiming the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- as was made applicable to the post of Deputy Director of Industries in the Government of Jharkhand. In the said writ application the petitioner also claimed the benefits 5th Pay Revision Committee to be implemented with effect from 1.4.1997, in view of minutes of the 60th Board meeting of RIADA, held on 22.11.1999, which have been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ application. The said W.P.S. No.6068 of 2002 was allowed by order dated 12.9.2007 as contained in Annexure-10 to this writ application.
(3.) Aggrieved by the said decision, the RIADA moved before this Court in LPA No.351 of 2007 which was allowed in part by the Judgment dated 08th August 2014, as contained in Annexure-11 to this writ application, setting aside the order dated 12.09.2007 passed in W.P(S) No.6068 of 2002. The petitioner's claim of parity with the post of the Deputy Director of Industries was rejected by the LPA Court holding as follows :- "14. ------------. The respondent-petitioner not produced any document to show that the post of Development Officer in RIADA and the Deputy Director in the Industries Department is equivalent post. The respondent-petitioner admitted that he was appointed as Development Officer in 1979 in terms of the advertisement issued by the RIADA. The appellant categorically stated that the Deputy Director, Industries is recruited through the Public Service Commission. It is evident that the procedure for recruitment on these two posts are entirely different and in the absence of any Resolution, Rules or Provisions of Act that the Development Officer is holding equivalent post to the Deputy Director the contention of the respondent-petitioner cannot be accepted. " ;