Gunanand Jha vs State of Jharkhand and Others

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—The petitioner has challenged the notification No. 2017 dated 29th August, 2002 (Sl. No. 1) whereby and whereunder respondent No. 5 Shri Satyendra Narayan Singh has been posted as Soil Conservation Officer, Lohardagga.

According to petitioner Gunanand Jha, he is holding substantive post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Kisko, Lohardagga and was holding additional charge of the post of Soil Conservation Officer, Lohardagga. It is alleged that respondent No. 5 is junior to him, who has now been given charge of the higher post of Soil Conservation Officer, Lohardagga and thereby the junior will control the petitioner. The respondent No. 5 as also the State have disputed the petitioner''s claim that he is senior to respondent No. 5.

It appears that the petitioner was an Agricultural Inspector in the scale of Rs. 2000-3800. Subsequently the State of Bihar upgraded the post by merging the same with the Bihar Agricultural Service Class-II and provided with the class-II scale of Rs. 2200-4000. Thereafter, disputes arose relating to upgradation of Agricultural Inspector and merging it in the Bihar Agricultural Service Class-II. According to petitioner, the matter moved up to the Supreme Court wherein a group of 1423 Agricultural Inspectors/Officers who were upgraded and merged in the Bihar Agricultural Service Class-II their pay in the scale of Rs. 2200- 4000 was protected. Subsequently at the time of grant of replaced pay scale the other Bihar Agricultural Service Class-II Officers have been provided with the revised scale of Rs. 6500-10500 but in respect to 1423 Officers revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 was provided. In that background again the writ petitions have been preferred by petitioner and others wherein certain orders were passed and LPA No. 166/97 is pending before the Patna High Court.

The Counsel for the petitioner referred to the gradation list dated 1st December, 1989 to suggest that he is senior to respondent No. 5 as petitioner''s name is appearing at Sl. No. 1272 whereas the name of respondent No. 5 is appearing at Sl. No. 2179.

However, according to respondents the respondent No. 5 being in the higher pay scale has to be treated as senior to the petitioner.

Having heard the Counsel for the parties as it appears that the question relating to replaced scale of pay with regard to 1423 officers including the petitioner is pending before the Patna High Court it is not desirable for this Court to give any finding whether the petitioner is entitled for replaced scale of Rs. 6500-10500 or not. It is also not desirable to give any verdict relating to seniority vis. a vis. petitioner and the respondent No. 5 as the seniority list brought to the notice of the Court is provisional.

However, as it appears that the respondent No. 5 is in the higher scale of pay i.e. Rs. 6500-10500 for the present and admittedly the petitioner for any reason is getting a lower scale of pay i.e. Rs. 5000-8000, I find no reason to interfere with the ad hoc arrangement by which the respondent No. 5 has been given charge of the post of Soil Conservation Officer, Lohardagga vide notification No. 2017 dated 29th August, 2002. However, taking into consideration the dispute between petitioner vis a vis respondent No. 5, the respondent No. 5 is directed not to give any direction like a superior officer to the petitioner nor he will write character roll of petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of.