Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. Bhavesh Kumar, learned S.C. II appearing for the Respondent-State.
(2.) In this writ application, the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 01.06.2010 vide Annexure-9 to the writ application, whereby the pay of the petitioner has been directed to be replaced to Rs.1320-2040 from the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/- and for recovery from the excess payment. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 10.01.2012 vide Annexure-11, whereby the service Book of the petitioner has been returned to the Palamau Treasury, Palamau, Medininagar, by the Joint Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi with direction to implement the letter dated 01.06.2010 (Annexure-9).
(3.) The brief facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application, are that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on the post of Clerk/Assistant in the year 1982 and the name of the petitioner was included in the Gradation list of employees of Treasury in Accounts cadre. The pay-scale of the petitioner of Rs.580-860/- was revised with effect from 01.01.1986 in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- and thereafter to the pay-scale from Rs.1400-2600/- with effect from 14.04.1992. The Director of Treasury came under the administrative control of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar and the Government of Bihar also framed a rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for the employees working under the Treasury. When the pay-scale of employees working in different Treasuries were reduced, a writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble Patna High Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 3063 of 1992 (Dhananjay Sharma & Othersvs.-State of Bihar & Ors.), which was allowed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court vide judgment dated 26.07.2001 by quashing the letter pertaining to reduction of pay with direction to the respondents to implement the recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee and to pay the pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/-, which was revised payscale of Rs.1400-2600/- to the employees of the Treasury. In pursuance to the aforesaid judgment, though the decision was taken to grant pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- to the Assistants working in the Treasury office prior to 1979, but, such scale was not applicable to the employees appointed on compassionate ground after 1979, as per the Notification dated 03.09.2002. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid Notification, challenged the said Notification in W.P. (S) No.742 of 2004 and the said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 22.08.2006 by this Court by quashing the impugned Notification dated 03.09.2002 with direction to the respondents to allow the pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1997, as has been allowed to the Assistants, appointed prior to 1979. The State of Jharkhand, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.08.2006, passed in W.P. (S) No. 742 of 2004, preferred L.P.A. No. 515 of 2006, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.11.2006 and subsequently, the said judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.08.2007. In pursuance to the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 742 of 2004, a Resolution dated 19.12.2007 was brought and the petitioner continued to receive the pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- but to the utter dismay and consternation of the petitioner, the impugned letter dated 01.06.2010 has been issued by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department with direction to re-fix the pay-scale of the petitioner by replacing the same with pay-scale of Rs.1320-2040/- and for recovery of the excess payment. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 10.01.2012 has been issued by the Joint Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for implementation of the letter dated 01.06.2010. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order vide Annexure-9 and 11 to the writ petition, the petitioner, left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy has been constrained to knock the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.;