AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amareshwar Sahay, J.—The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 10/12/2001, contained in Annexure-20, by which the respondents decided that the Chawkidari Tahsildars would be deemed to be the Government Servants from the date of their absorption in the Government Service and not from the date of their initial appointment.
The facts, in short, are that the petitioner No. 1 Raghu Nayak Lal was appointed as Chawkidari Tahsildar on 02/12/1959 and he was given first time bound promotion w.e.f. 25/08/1982 and he retired from service on 01/12/1993. After his retirement, he was given second time bound promotion w.e.f. 23/08/1987 and his pension was fixed @ Rs. 867/-p.m. with effect from 01/12/1993.
The petitioner No. 2 Md. Mazid and petitioner No. 3 Jiblal Ram were appointed as Chawkidari Tahsildars on 03/10/1962. Petitioner No. 2 was given the first time bound promotion w.e.f. 14/10/1985 vide order dated 06/11/1996 and the second time bound promotion w.e.f. 14/10/1988, whereas petitioner No. 3 was given, first time bound promotion w.e.f. 01/04/1981 and second time bound promotion w.e.f. 01/04/1987. The petitioner No. 2 superannuated on 01/10/1998 and his pension was fixed @ Rs. 880/-p.m., whereas petitioner No. 3 superannuated on 01/02/1998 and he was allowed monthly pension @ Rs. 948/-p.m.
The case of the petitioners is that in the year 1984, the Government of Bihar took a decision that all the Chawkidari Tahsildars working in the North and South Chhotanagpur division will be absorbed on the posts of Revenue Karamchari in Anchal Office and no fresh appointment would be done on the post of Revenue Karamchari till all the Chawkidari Tahsildars are adjusted and, accordingly, the petitioners, who were appointed as Chawkidari Tahsildars were absorbed as Revenue Karamchari. Further case of the petitioners is that by letter dated 04/09/1986 (Annexure-14), the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar communicated the decision of the State Government to the Commissioner, North and South Chhotanagpur respectively, that all the Chawkidari Tahsildars, absorbed on the post of Revenue Karamchari, would be given the benefits of pension, gratuity, time bound promotion etc. from the date of their absorption on the post of Revenue Karamchari.
It is stated that against this order, contained in Annexure14, the petitioners filed CWJC No. 3594 of 1993 (R), before this Court praying therein that the Chawkidari Tahsildars be declared Government Servant from the date of their initial appointment and not from the date of their absorption as Revenue Karamchari.
The said writ petition was disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to file representation before the authorities concerned to decide the question involved in the said writ petition within a period of three weeks.
It appears that by issue of letter dated 28/08/1996, contained in Annexure-19, issued by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh was informed that the Government, on consideration of the matter, has decided that the Chawkidari Tahsildars would be given the pensionary and other benefits from the date of their initial appointment considering them to be the Government Servants and they would also be entitled to time bound promotion etc.
Further case of the petitioners is that several Chawkidari Tahsildars have retired and several are still in service as Revenue Karamchari and they are getting their salaries and pension etc. according to the decisions contained in memo No. 598 dated 25/08/1995 treating them as Government Servants from the date of their initial appointment, i.e. the date on which they were initially appointed as Chawkidari Tahsildars.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the Government of Jharkhand by issue of Annexure-20 dated 10/12/2001 has decided to treat the Chawkidari Tahsildars as Government Servants from the date of their absorption in the Government Service and it has been declared that the letter dated 28/08/1996 issued by the Government of Bihar, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms be treated as cancelled, which, according to the petitioners, is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and is against the provisions of Section 73 of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, which provides that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day, i.e. 15/11/2000 in the case of any person deemed to have been allocated to the State of Bihar or to the State of Jharkhand u/s 72, shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government.
It is submitted that by issue of Annexure-20, the Government of Jharkhand has illegally varied the conditions of service of the petitioners to their disadvantage involving promotion, monetary benefits, pension etc. without prior permission of the Central Government and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
In support of her submission, Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ""T.R. Kapur-versus-State of Haryana reported in AIR 1987 SC 415" and the judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in the case of "Rajendra Pratap Sinha-versus-State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in 2009 (2) JLJR 750".
On the other hand, the stand of the State of Jharkhand as it appears from the counter affidavit is that the Chawkidari Tahsildars, working in Chhotanagpur Region were not being treated as Government Servants prior to 1986. It is only in 1986, by issue of Government''s circular dated 04/09/1986 the government of Bihar decided to absorb Chawkidari Tahsildars as Revenue Karamchari and then they were treated as Government Servants. It was also directed to give them the benefit of pension and gratuity etc. from the date of their absorption to the post of Revenue Karamchari. Subsequently, on a demand made by non-gazetted employee federation, the Bihar Government, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms vide letter No. 598 dated 25/08/1995 decided to treat the Chawkidari Tahsildars as Government Servants from the date of their initial appointment and it was directed that their pension etc. should be calculated from that date. Subsequently, vide letter of the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar dated 28/08/1996 it was further decided that such Chawkidari Tahsildars should be given time bound promotion counting their services from the date of their initial appointment. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that the entire matter was under consideration before the Government of Bihar as to whether Chawkidari Tahsildars should be given the benefit of pension and time bound promotion from the date of their initial appointment or from the date of their absorption but in the meantime the State of Bihar was bifurcated w.e.f. 15/11/2000 and, thereafter, the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms vide letter dated 10/12/2001, decided that the Chawkidari Tahsildars should be treated as Government Servant from the date of their absorption as Revenue Karamchari and not from the date of their initial appointment.
From the statements made in the counter affidavit, noticed above, it appears that the fact that the Chawkidari Tahsildars, working in Chhotanagpur Region were decided to be treated as Government Servants by the Government of Bihar from the date of their initial appointment by issue of letter dated 25/08/1995, contained in Annexure-D to the counter affidavit and, thereafter, by issue of letter, contained in Annexure-E dated 28/08/1996, the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, further decided that the Chawkidari Tahsildars working in Chhotanagpur region would be treated to be Government Servant from the date of their initial appointment and they would get the benefits of pension and promotion to the Sr. Selection Grade and time bound promotion etc.
Therefore, it is clear that prior to the bifurcation of the State of Bihar and prior to creation of the State of Jharkhand, Chawkidari Tahsildars working in Chhotanagpur region were being treated as Government Servant by the Government of Bihar from the date of their initial appointment as Chawkidari Tahsildars and they were also being given the benefits of pension, gratuity, promotion to the senior selection grade and time bound promotion like other Government Servants.
Section 73 of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 is quoted herein below for ready reference:
Other provisions relating to services-(1) Nothing in Section 72 shall be deemed to affect on or after the appointed day the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State.
Provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day, i.e. 15/11/2000 in the case of any person deemed to have been allocated to the State of Bihar or to the State of Jharkhand u/s 72, shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government
(2) All services prior to the appointed day rendered by a person.
(a) if he is deemed to have been allocated to any State u/s 72, shall be deemed to have been rendered in connection with the affairs of that State;
(b) if he is deemed to have been allocated to the Union in connection with the administration of the Jharkhand shall be deemed to have been rendered in connection with the affairs of the Union. for the purposes of the rules regulating his conditions of service.
(3) The previous of Section 72, shall not apply in relation to members of any All India Service.
The Supreme Court while dealing with a case under the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 has held in the case of "T.R. Kapur versus-State of Haryana, (supra) that alteration in service rules made under Proviso to Article 309 prior to the appointed day specified in the Act to the disadvantage of a Government Servant without prior approval of Central Government is void.
In the other decision cited by the petitioners, i.e. of a Single Bench of this Court in the case of "Rajendra Pratap Sinha-versus- State of Jharkhand and Anr., (supra) it has been held that Section 73 does not permit any change in service conditions to the disadvantage of Government Servants whose services have been allotted to any of successor State.
Both the decisions, noticed above, are applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case also.
After considering the rival submissions as well as the facts stated herein above as well as the case law cited, I find that since the Chawkidari Tahsildars, working in Chhotanagpur region were already being treated as Government Servants from the date of their initial appointment by the decisions of the Government of Bihar, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms by issue of Annexure-D and E to the counter affidavit and they were being given the pensionary benefits as well as the other benefits like other Government Servants, then in such a situation, in view of Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, the Government of Jharkhand was not authorized under the law to issue the order dated 10/12/2001, contained in memo No. 4236, i.e. Annexure-20 to the writ petition, deciding to treat the Chawkidari Tahsildars as Government Servants from the date of their absorption as Revenue Karamchari. Such decision of the Government of Jharkhand amounted to varying the change in the service conditions of the Chawkidari Tahsildars/Revenue Karamchari without prior permission or sanction of the Central Government.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 10/12/2001, contained in Memo No. 4236, i.e. Annexure-20, is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioners Chawkidari Tahsildars as Government Servants from the date of their initial appointment and not from the date of their absorption as Revenue Karamchari and they are further directed to give all the pensionary and promotional and other benefits to the petitioners which are admissible to a Government Servant.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are held to be entitled to cost, which is assessed to Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) to be paid to the petitioners by the respondent State. The respondent State is directed to issue consequential orders within a period of four weeks from today.