SARITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2009-1-59
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on January 09,2009

SARITA KUMARI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order contained in letter No. 1533 dated 4.6.2005 and letter No. 1675 dated 15.6.2005 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide which the basic pay scale of the petitioners, who are Laboratory Assistants, working under the Vocational Education Stream at +2 Level has been reduced from Rs.5,000 -8,000/ -to Rs.4,500 -7,000/ -and further for recovery of excess amount received on the basis of the pay scale of Rs.5,000 -8,000/ -sought to be realized in 12 instalments.
(2.) THE facts in brief are set out as under: - The petitioners upon selection were appointed as Laboratory Assistants on 15.7.1993 and as per Resolution No. 660(F/2) dated 8.2.1999 their pay scale were revised in the pay scale of Rs.5,000 -8,000/ -. According to the petitioners pursuant to the Resolution of the State of Jharkhand, Government of Jharkhand extended the Vocational Education Stream from time to time and the same was transferred from Plan Head to Non -Plan Head and finally on 23.11.2004 the Government of Jharkhand granted permanent status to the Vocational Education Stream running in the fifty seven +2 schools which according to them stipulates the pay scale as Rs.5,000 -8,000/ -. The petitioners basic pay scale was directed to be reduced from Rs.5,000 -8,000/ -to Rs.4,500 -7,000/ -vide impugned order dated 4.6.2005 and it was also directed vide letter dated 15.6.2005 to realize the excess amount drawn in 12 equal instalments and the same is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) THE main contention raised by the petitioners is that the reduction of basic pay scale of the petitioner is punitive in nature and involved civil consequences and as such the principles of natural justice ought to have been followed. It has also been contended that the action of the respondents lacks fair play and is on the face of it arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.