Jharkhand High CourtAshish Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 July, 2023Bench:Shree Chandrashekhar,Ratnaker BhengraIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n             (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)\n\n                          LPA No. 565 of 2019\n                                     ------\n1.     Ashish Kumar, son of Shri Bishnudeo Prasad, resident of Adarsh\nColony, Mango, PO and PS: Mango, District: East Singhbhum at\nJamshedpur- 831012.\n2.     Ambujya Kumar Pandey, son of Sri Ganesh Pandey, resident of Qr.\nNo. CD-33/2, HEC Colony, PO: Dhurwa, PS: Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi-\n834004.\n3.     Sunita Lakra, daughter of H.L. Lakra, resident of Albert Compound,\nPurulia Gumla Road, Ranchi PO GPO PS Lower Bazar, District Ranchi-\n834001.\n4.     Shiv Kumar Mallick, son of Late B. Mallick, resident of RIMS\nColony, Bariatu, PO:Bariatu, PS. Bariatu, Ranchi- 834009.\n5.     Pankaj Kumar, son of Shri R.C. Thakur, resident of 149, New AG\nColony, Kadru, Ranchi, PO: Doranda, PS: Argora, District: Ranchi.\n6.     Vijay Kumar, son of late Gobardhan Singh, resident of DT-681 Dam\nSite, Dhurwa, PO: Dhurwa, PS: Jagannathpur, District: Ranchi-834004.\n7.     Sanjay Kumar Kapri, son of Shri Jai Chandra Kapri, resident of\nMohalla Gulzarbagh, Godda, PO, PS, and District: Godda.\n8.     Nalini Ranjan, son of Sri Rajendra Prasad Sah, resident of Gopalpur,\nPO and PS: Ghatshila, District: East Singhbhum.\n9.     Piyush Kumar, son of Sri Janardan Bhagat, resident of village:\nPathargama, PO and PS: Pathargama, District: Godda-814147.\n10. Devesh Kumar Sinha, son of Shri R.N. Prasad, resident of village:\nNawagarh, PO: Kharkharee, PS: Madhuband, District: Dhanbad-828125.\n11. Shiv Shankar Prabhat, son of Late Satyadeo Prasad, resident of\nBasant Vihar Colony near Jhirhariapul, Hazaribagh, PO and PS:\nHazaribagh, District: Hazaribagh.\n12. Kaushal Kishore, son of Sri Murlidhar Prasad, resident of Pahantoli,\nnear ITI Barja, Itki Road, Ranchi, PO: Hehal, PS: Sukhdeonagar, District:\nRanchi-834005.\n13. Amit Kumar Mukherjee, son of late Amulya Kumar Mukherjee,\nresident of Hoogly Cottage, European Quarters, Chaibasa, PO, PS, and\nDistrict: Chaibasa-833201.\n14. Jyoto Xalxo, son of Sri Karam Sing Oraon, resident of Opposite Birsa\nStadium, Sarai Tank, Morhabadi, PO: Morhabadi, PS: Hatma, District:\nRanchi-834008.\n15. Monidipa Banerjee, daughter of late N.C. Banerjee, resident of\nChandraniketan, Shivpuri Colony, Hinoo, PO: Hinoo, PS: Doranda, District\nRanchi.\n16. Anup M. Kerketta, son of Sri Abraham Kerketta, resident of Lowadih,\nPO and PS: Namkum, District: Ranchi.\n17. Uday Kumar Singh, son of Sri Binod Kumar Singh, resident of\nNational Public School, New Area, Hazaribagh, PO and PS: Hazaribagh,\nDistrict: Hazaribagh-825301.\n18. Prakash Kumar, son of Sri P.P. Srivastava, resident of House No.1,\nAnand Nagar near Shiv Mandir, Namda Basti, Golmuri, PO and PS:\nGolmuri, District: East Singhbhum-831003.               ... Appellants\n                                         2                     LPA No. 565 of 2019\n\n\n\n\n                                     Versus\n1.    The State of Jharkhand.\n2.    The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand-cum-Chairman, State\nExecutive Committee, JEPC, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, PO:\nDhurwa, PS: Jagarnnathpur, District: Ranchi.\n3.    The Secretary, Human Resource Development Department,\nGovernment of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, PO: Dhurwa,\nPS: Jagannathpur, District: Ranchi.\n4.    The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand,\nProject Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, PO: Dhurwa, PS: Jagannathpur, District:\nRanchi.\n5.     The Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of\nJharkhand, Project Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, PO: Dhurwa, PS: Jagannathpur,\nDistrict: Ranchi.\n6.     The State Project Director, Jharkhand Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad,\nhaving its office at New Cooperative Building, Shyamli Colony, Doranda,\nPO and PS: Doranda, District: Ranchi.\n7.     The Administrative Officer, Jharkhand Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad,\nhaving its office at New Cooperative Building, Shyamli Colony, Doranda,\nPO and PS: Doranda, District: Ranchi.\n                                                 ...... Respondents\n                                      ---------\n                                PRESENT\n         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR\n             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA\n                                  -------\n      For the Appellants     : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate;\n                               Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate\n      For the State          : Mr. L.G.R.N. Shahdeo, AC to S.C-IV\n      For the Resp. Nos.6 &7 : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate;\n                               Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate\n                                 -------\n                                                     Oral Order\n                                                     th\n                                                    4 July 2023\nPer, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.IA No. 6670 of 2021This Interlocutory Application has been filed to array Mridulata\nMarandi as proforma respondent who is the wife and legal heir of Rajesh\nHansdah, the writ petitioner no.10 in WP(S) No. 3208 of 2014. This\nInterlocutory Application is supported by an affidavit of the appellant no.12.2.           Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants submits\nthat on account of the defect pointed out by the Registry this Interlocutory\nApplication has been filed.3                        LPA No. 565 of 20193.            Having regard to the fact that the husband of Mridulata Marandi\nwas the writ petitioner no.10 in WP(S) No. 3208 of 2014, IA No. 6670 of\n2021 is allowed and Mridulata Marandi is directed to be added as proforma\nrespondent.4.            However, it is made clear that any decision rendered in the present\nLetters Patent Appeal shall not affect her rights in any manner whatsoever and\nshe shall be entitled to agitate her claim before any Forum including the Letters\nPatent Court.LPA No. 565 of 20195.            19 persons who were appointed on the post of Additional District\nProgramme Officer were aggrieved of the decision taken on 19 th October\n2009 in 19th Meeting of the State Coordination Committee that these\ncontractual employees shall be provided 6% increment.6.            WP(S) No. 3208 of 2014, filed by 19 persons out of whom 18\npersons are appellants before us except Rajesh Hansdah, has been dismissed by\nthe order dated 16th July 2019 holding that there is no illegality in the decision\ntaken by the State Coordination Committee7.            The writ Court has taken note of the rival contentions and held as\nunder:"5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking into\n              the nature of dispute, particularly the nature of appointment of the\n              petitioners and documents supplied to the petitioners under theRight to Information Act, 2005, from which it is apparent that the\n              petitioners have been provided Rs.14,595/-, whereas they were\n              entitled to Rs.12,302/- at the time of appointment. Moreover, it\n              was the decision of a High Power Committee to give increment at\n              the rate of 6% to the petitioners. The post is also contractual and\n              no right has accrued in favour of the petitioners to provide\n              increment at the rate of 25%."8.            Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants would\ncontend that the appellants have been discriminated as compared to other\ncontractual employees inasmuch as they have been granted 6% annual\nincrement whereas the others have been given 25% hike.9.              Referring to the stand taken by the Jharkhand Education Project\nCouncil that the emolument fixed for Additional District Programme Officers\nwas inclusive of 19% hike, the learned counsel for the appellants has referred\nto the advertisement dated 23rd June 2006 and corrigendum dated 24th June\n2006 to submit that the stand was taken by the Project Director before the writ\nCourt was contrary to what would appear from the aforesaid documents.4                    LPA No. 565 of 201910.              In the first place, this needs to be indicated that appointment of\nthe Additional District Programme Officers pursuant to the advertisement\nno.09/2006 was purely contractual for one year and liable to be terminated by\none month's notice even before expiry of one year. It is further revealed from\nthe communication dated 24th September 2007 by which the appellants were\ninvited to give consent for appointment on the post of Additional District\nProgramme Officer that they were offered monthly emolument of Rs.14,595/-\nwhich is the consolidated amount paid to them. The expression 'consolidated' is\nquite relevant in the context of the plea urged by the learned counsel for the\nappellants that Rs.14,595/- was the basic pay/salary for the Additional District\nProgramme Officers. The condition no.4 in the letter dated 24 th September\n2007 which uses the expression 'consolidated' makes it quite clear that the\nmonthly emolument paid to the            Additional District Programme Officers\nincluded other service linked benefits as admissible to them.11.              Before the writ Court, Jharkhand Education Project Council took\na stand that the basic pay/salary for the Additional District Programme Officers\nis Rs.12,302/- whereas the consolidated monthly emolument paid to them, as\nreflected in the advertisement no.09/2006 was inclusive of 19% increment. The\nwrit Court has also taken note of the fact that this information was provided to\nthe appellants in response to their application filed under theRight to\nInformation Act, 2005and there is no other material to contradict the aforesaid\nstand taken by the Jharkhand Education Project Council.12.              This is quite an acceptable proposition that the employer shall be\nthe right person to explain the conditions of employment and unless it is\ndemonstrated before the Court by producing indisputable document the stand\ntaken by the employer shall be accepted by the Court. After all it is the\nemployer and not the Court who decides the conditions of service of his\nemployees.13.              Having held so, we do not find any reason to interfere in this\nmatter and, accordingly, LPA No. 565 of 2019 is dismissed.(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)\n\n\n                                                 (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)\nJharkhand High Court, Ranchi\nDated: 4th July, 2023\nS.B./ Nibha-N.A.F.R