AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent to restore the scale during deputation of the service to the post of Deputy Project Manager in Agriculture Technology Management Agency (in short referred to as "ATMA"), Dumka in scale of Rs.8000-13500/-.
Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly placed employees who were on deputation and after completion of their deputation, the scale had been continued and therefore, petitioner is entitled to the same benefit of higher scale at that of the similarly situated persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he has also filed representation vide Annexure-10 to the writ application dated 02.07.2006, which has failed to evoke any response.
A counter-affidavit dated 17.09.2015 on behalf of the respondents has been filed stating therein that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Manager (Assistant Superintendent) at Farm Mulberry Prasar Sah Prashikshan Kendra, Kathijoriya in the scale of Rs.5000-8000/-. The petitioner went on deputation to Agriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA) on his own choice. After end of deputation, he came to the substantive post of Assistant Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs.5000- 8000/- as per Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that as per provisions of the service code Rule 271, a government servant in foreign service appointed to officiate in a post in Government Service, will draw pay calculated on the pay of the post in Government Service on which he holds a lien or would hold a lien, had his lien not been suspended and on the post in which he officiates hence, his pay in foreign service will not be taken into account in fixing his pay scale.
Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C.(L&C) for the respondent-State has reiterated the submissions made in the counter-affidavit.
During course of hearing, Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the direction would be issued to the respondents more particularly respondent no.2 to consider and dispose of the representation vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition, the grievance of petitioner shall be redressed.
Learned counsel for the State has no serious objection to that course of action.
Without delving into merit of the case, nitty gritty of factual and legal aspects, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to dispose of the representations vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition, if not already disposed of, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order and decision taken thereof be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.