D.G.R.PATNAIK J. - (1.) Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for an order for quashing the order dated 15.3.2007 communicated to the petitioner through Memo No. 5/Nyayalay -01/2007 Ka. 1342/Ranchi dated 16th March, 2007, whereby his representation for his upgradation in the Grade of Personal Assistant has been rejected. A further prayer has been made for an order directing and commanding upon the Respondents to forthwith upgrade the petitioner to the Grade of Personal Assistant in the light of the Resolution vide Memorandum dated 10th July, 1979, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Government of Bihar, Patna and to give the benefits consequential thereto
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Stenograph8r on 1.2.1973 in the Town Planning Department at Ranchi. He was later confirmed in the post under the Town Planning Office. The petitioner's contention is that by a letter dated 18.7.1990 (Annexure -2) issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Bihar, Patna on 18th September, 1990, which was circulated amongst all the Departments of the Government it was declared that pursuant to an understanding arrived at with the representatives of the employees Organization, all such Stenographers, who were appointed before 10.11.1988 are upgraded to the post of Personal Assistants in view of the Resolution adopted on 10.7.1979. One Jairam Singh, who is similarly situated as to the petitioner, has been granted the benefit of the upgradation and has been appointed as Personal Assistant by letter No. 328 dated 20.3.1988, issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar Patna. Likewise, vide Annexure -4 dated 10.9.1987, 14 other persons, who were also initially appointed as Stenographers have been upgraded to the post of Personal Assistants. The petitioner has claimed that the Circular (Annexure -2) applies to all Stenographers employed in the Secretariat or its attached Offices and the Office, where the petitioner was initially employed namely, the Town Planning Department also comes within the scope of attached Office of the Secretariat and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of his upgradation. It is further claimed that the petitioner's representation for his upgradation was not being considered and, therefore, he had filed a writ application before this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 285 of 2007 and by order dated 14.2.2007, a direction was issued by this Court 10 the Respondents, namely, the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jl1arkhand, Ranchi to consider the petitioner's claim and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Resolution dated 10th July, 1979, and the Circular, dated 18th September, 1990 issued by the Government. Pursuant to the directions contained in the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioner had filed his fresh representation before the concerned Respondent but by the impugned order dated 15.3.2007 (Annexure7), the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Respondent No. 2 on the grounds, which are totally untenable. Reiterating the petitioner's stand, learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the rejection of the petitioner's representation has been made on fallacious arguments that the Resolution dated 10th July, 1979 and the Circular dated 18th September, 1990, issued by the State Government, do not apply to the petitioner, since the circular apply only to Stenographers employed in Secretariat or its attached Offices and that the Town Planning Department in which the petitioner is employed, does not fall within the purview of Secretariat or its attached Offices.
(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents, denying and disputing the claim of the petitioner. The stand taken by the Respondents is that the Resolution dated 10.7.1979 and the Circular dated 18.9.1990, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and the Rajbhasha, Government of Bihar, Patna, does not apply to the petitioner. It is explained that the Circular dated 18.9.1990 prohibits further creation of posts of Stenographers in the Secretariat and its attached Offices and the appointments made against these posts. However, the Circular does not prohibit the creation and appointment of persons in such posts in Mufassil or Regional Offices. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed against the posts created for Regional Office and as such, the Resolution dated 10.7.1979, which was communicated to the concerned Departments vide Letter dated 1.1.1998 by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and the Rajbhasha, relates only to Steno -Typists and Stenographers of the Secretariat and its attached Offices. The petitioner, who was appointed and belongs to the Regional Cadre and not to the Secretariat and attached Cadre, cannot claim the benefit of the Resolution dated 10.7.1979. It is further stated that there are two cadres of Stenographers, one for the Secretariat and the attached Offices and the other for the Regional or Mufassil Offices. Whereas in the Secretariat and the attached Offices the posts of Steno -Typist or Stenographer was abolished and they were absorbed in the Personal Assistant cadre but no decision was taken with regard to Stenographers working in the Regional Offices. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner controverts the above arguments as being fallacious in view of the fact that the petitioner's appointment was made in the Office of the Chief Town Planner, which falls under the Department of Urban Development of the State Government. Referring to Annexure -g, learned counsel explains that on the representations submitted by him with a prayer for his upgradation, a reference was made by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department vide its letter No. 4733 dated 31.12.2005 to the Chief Town Planner, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna in which a query was made, whether the Town Planning Office located at Ranchi, was notified as an Office attached under the Urban Development Department of the Government. In response thereto, the Chief Town Planner had informed vide his letter No. 155 dated 25.2.2006, that the posts of the Chief Town Planner as the Head of the Department was notified by the Government and has also affirmed that the Town and Regional Planner's Organization falls within the Urban Development Department. Learned counsel adds further that the petitioner has been drawing his salary from the Urban Development Department and this also confirms the fact that the Office in which the petitioner is posted, falls within the Urban Development Department of the State Government and is, therefore, an attached Office of the Secretariat. 6. The above contention of the learned counsel has also been replied to in the counter affidavit of the Respondents. By referring to the same letter of the Chief Town Planner to the query made by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Rajbhasha Department, it is explained that the letter issued by the Chief Town Planner only indicates that the Office of the Ranchi Town Planner was a Divisional Level Office and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Office of the Chief Town Planner and of Ranchi Town Planner is an attached Office of the Urban Development Department. It is further stated that merely because the Chief Town Planner, Bihar was declared as the Head of the Department, it does not automatically mean that the Office of the Chief Town Planner is notified as an attached office of the Secretariat. It cannot be denied that the Office of the Chief Town Planner, Ranchi was definitely a Divisional Level Office. Reference has been made in this context to a Notification issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna vide Memo No. S.O. 121 dated 1.6.1992 in which the list of the Secretariat's Departments and its attached Offices have been given. The list does not contain the mention of the office of the Chief Planning Officer as an attached office of the Urban Development Department. As regards the claim of the petitioner that one Jayram Singh and 14 other Stenographers, who were earlier appointed as Stenographers were upgraded to the posts of Personal Assistants, it is explained that all these persons were admittedly employed in the Secretariat and its attached Offices and, therefore, they had the privilege of the Circular, under which their posts were upgraded but since the petitioner's Office does not fall in the category of employee of the Secretariat and its attached Office, the petitioner cannot make any such claim for upgradation. 7. As noted above, the petitioner has based his claim on tile State Government's Resolution and Circular (Annexure -2 and Annexure -3 respectively) under which Stenographers employed in the Secretariat and its attached Offices, were eligible for upgradation to the posts of Personal Assistants. 8. The controversy raised by the Respondent is that the petitioner being employed in the Town Planning Office, Ranchi cannot be considered to claim as an employee of the Secretariat and its attached Offices, since the office of the Town Planner falls under the Regional/Divisional Level, to which the aforesaid Resolution and Circular (Annexure 2 and 3 respectively) do not apply. Annexure B to the counter affidavit is a Notification, issued on 1st June, 1992 by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, which contains the Rules applicable to the employees of the Secretariat and its attached Offices. The definition of "Secretariat and attached Offices", as stated therein, includes the Secretariat and such Offices situated at Ranchi and other districts under the various Departments of the State Government, a list of which has been given in Schedule -I to the Rules. The list in Schedule -I refers to the several Offices falling under the various Departments of the State Government, which have been included as the Offices attached to the Secretariat. The list contains reference to the Office under the control of the Urban Development Department. 9. The petitioner relies upon the query made by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department to the Chief Town Planner and the response thereto, given to the Chief Town Planner under which, the Chief Town Planner has affirmed that the Office of the Chief Town Planner tails within the Department of the Urban Development Department of the State Government. The reply letter of the Chief Town Planner given in response to the queries made by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department appears to be misleading. The two letters, purportedly issued by the Urban Development Department vide letter No. 6720 dated 2.2.1966 and the letter No. 1659 dated 2.8.1974, which are said to have been attached to the reply of the Chief Town Planner, merely declares the creation of the posts of the Head of the Department and also the post of the Chief Planner's Office and the Regional Planner's Office. These letters do not suggest that the Office of the Town Planner, Ranchi has been notified by the State Government as an Office of the Urban Development Department. On the contrary, the Notification issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, vide Memo No. S.O. 121, dated 1.6.1992, containing a list of Secretariat Department and its attached Offices, does not mention the Office of the Chief Town Planner as an attached Office of the Urban Development Department. 10. Undisputedly, the petitioner's appointment was made in the Regional Planner's Office at Ranchi and in absence of any declaration or notification by the State Government that the Regional Offices also come within the purview of the Secretariat and its attached Offices, it cannot be said that the petitioner's employment was made under the Urban Development Department of State Government and therefore, under an attached Office of the Secretariat. The petitioner cannot, therefore, derive any benefit from the Government's Resolution dated 10.7.1979 (Annexure -2) or the Circular dated 18.9.1990 (Annexure -3), issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department of the State Government. The impugned order has elaborately discussed all the relevant facts, assigning reasons for rejecting the petitioner's representation. 11. There is no infirmity in the impugned order, which could merit interference by this Court. In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ application. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.;