2025:JHHC:12648 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2298 of 2017 ----- Ravindra Nath Singh, S/o Late Jwala Prasad Singh, R/o Plot No.C-19, Biada Housing Colony, Bokaro, Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City & District Bokaro … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.The Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi 3.The Director, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand 4.The Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority, BIADA Bhawan, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro 5.The Managing Director, Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority, BIADA Bhawan, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro 6.The Secretary, Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority, BIADA Bhawan, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro …… Respondent(s) …… PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate Mr. Sharon Kerketta, Advocate Ms. Ayushi, Advocate Mr. Bhanu Kumar No.1, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, AC to G.P.-VI For the Resp Nos.4-6 : Ms. Richa Sanchita, Advocate Mr. Suman Roy, Advocate ………. O R D E R Reserved on: 05.02.2025 Pronounced On:28/ 04/2025 In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash Memo No.205 dated 09.03.2017, whereby the Managing Director, BIADA has been pleased to reject the claim of the petitioner by which he claimed the pay scale of Assistant. He also prayed that his pensionary benefit be revised after revising the pay scale of the petitioner as that of an Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2750 with effect from 23.08.1991 as he claims that he was absorbed in the regular vacant and sanctioned post of Assistant vide order dated 24.08.1981. He also prayed for revision of the retiral benefit. 2. Admitted facts in this case are that petitioner was engaged in daily wage basis in the office of the respondent with effect from 11.12.1984 and was working on ad-hoc basis. He was absorbed against the regular vacant post 2025:JHHC:12648 2 in the pay scale of Rs.1200-1800 with effect from 23.08.1991. He ultimately superannuated attaining the age of 60 years on 31.05.2016. The persons who were appointed like the petitioner on daily wages have been regularized in the year, 1990 were getting the pay scale and the department decided to make payment in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2750 with effect from 01.01.1990. Since the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid fact and the benefit given to the co-worker, the petitioner in year 2015 made representation. The petitioner even after superannuation represented and claimed the pay scale, praying to extend the same benefit which the petitioner of W.P.(S) No.5860 of 2002 was granted. The respondents did not grant the said benefit, thus, the petitioner was forced to approach this, Court. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to take an appropriate decision. The decision was taken negating the claim of the petitioner, resulting in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly in paragraph 12 of the impugned order, the authorities accepted that the petitioner was appointed in the post of Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.1200- 30-1800 in the year, 1991. Since the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the year, 1991, the respondents cannot after a long period say that he was mistakenly appointed as Assistant. Since no fraud has been committed by the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled for the pay in the scale of Rs.1500-2700, which is the scale of Assistant. He further submitted that respondents did not consider the fact that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant which is absolutely illegal. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that initially the petitioner was recruited on daily wages in January, 1985 @ Rs.12 per day. It was decided to regularize all these staff i.e. the daily wages employee. BIADA wrote a letter to the Bureau of Public Enterprises and Industry Department about the decision to regularize, but no reply was received. After waiting for considerable period, a decision was taken to regularize all the daily wage employees. In the Board’s meeting dated 05.04.1986 a proposal was mooted that after training of computer, if the petitioner would work as Typist satisfactorily than he might get pay scale of Rs.580-860. Ultimately, in the 44 meetings of the Board on 04.05.1987, two 2025:JHHC:12648 3 posts of Lower Division Clerk were created in the pay scale of Rs.580-860. Ultimately, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Regional Cashier on ad- hoc basis on 30.01.1988 in the pay scale of 400-07-470-10-510. Though the petitioner gave representation to regularize him in the post of Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.580-860, but as there was no vacant of post of Assistant and nor any new post was created, he could not be adjusted. His services were extended from time to time and the petitioner was appointed by adjustment in vacant post of Lower Division Clerk in the scale of 1200-30-1800. This appointment was made when one R.K. Mishra was made the Head Clerk. The petitioner accepted the said post and the scale on 23.08.1991 and started working, he did not raise any objection for this long 23 year and only just few days before retirement, he started making objection, thus, he is not entitled for any benefit. It has been specifically contended by the respondents that the petitioner was neither appointed as Assistant nor passed the Accounts examination rather, he was adjusted on the vacant post of Lower Division Clerk and was originally appointed as Assistant Regional Cashier. The pay scale which the petitioner claims is also denied. 5. From the materials on record and arguments by the parties, I find that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages. The absorption letter of the petitioner is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, which is dated 24.08.1991. From perusal of the said letter, I find that it has been mentioned that the petitioner was absorbed against the post of Assistant in the scale of Rs.1200- 30-1800. The confusion was created here. The pay scale 1200-30-1800 is admittedly not the scale of Assistant rather, it was scale of the Lower Division Clerk. In the said letter it has been mentioned that the petitioner was absorbed as Assistant which created the confusion. In my opinion when there is discrepancy between the post and scale, the scale in which the petitioner is appointed if it is specific then the same has to be considered to be correct. Since the petitioner was appointed against the scale of 1200-30-1800, he got his salary in the said scale which was infact that of a Lower Division Clerk. In the counter affidavit at paragraph- 17, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner was regularized in the said scale against the vacant of Lower Division Clerk. The resolution of the Board also supports this fact. There is no 2025:JHHC:12648 4 dispute that the said scale is of Lower Division Clerk. The petitioner worked and received the said scale and the subsequent revised corresponding pay scales. He never raised any grievance or dispute for long 23 years, he worked and enjoyed the said scale but only few months before the superannuation, he started objecting. 6. From the counter affidavit, it is quite clear that in absence of post, the petitioner could not have been regularized and once the post got vacant, he was adjusted. 7. The respondents also distinguished the case of the petitioner from Santosh Kumar Jha and Late Anil Sinha and Others, which is apparent paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit. 8. From what has been discussed above, I find that the actually the petitioner was appointed against the pay scale of Rs.1200-30-1800. The nomenclature of the post mentioned in his appointment/regularization letter is by way of inadvertence. The petitioner enjoyed the said pay scale for long 23 years without any objection. Further it is clear that the petitioner was absorbed once the post became vacant. Further, I find that there is delay and latches on the part of the petitioner as it is clear that for 23 years, he did not raise any objection. 9. Considering what has been held above, I am of the opinion that no benefit can be given to the petitioner and thus, this writ petition stands dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 28/04 /2025 NAFR /R.S./ Cp 03.