2026:JHHC:12144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2189 of 2017 ------ Ruma Singh W/o Late Krishana Kumar Singh, S/o Yagya Narayan Singh, resident of C/o Virendra Singh, Vastu Vihar Residential Colony. Gali no. 2, Mukundganj, P.O. & P.S. Babhnave, District-Hazaribagh, Pin- 825302. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Science & Technology Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi 3. The Director, Science & Technology Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi. 4. The Special Work Officer, Science & Technology Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, Dist. - Ranchi. 5. The Under Secretary, Science & Technology Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, Dist. Ranchi. 6. Treasury Officer, Dhanbad, P.O.& P.S.- Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad. 7. Government Polytechnic College, Dhanbad through its Principal, Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad, P.O.- В. Polytechnic, , P.S.- Dhanbad, Dist.- Dhanbad Jharkhand (828130). 8. Sri Kaushal Kishore Sinha, Principal, Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad, P.O. B. Polytechnic, P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.- Dhanbad, Jharkhand (828130). 9. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, P.O. - Doranda, P.S.-Doranda, Dist.- Ranchi, Pin- 834002. ... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A.-I : Mr. Abhinay Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-I For the Acct. General : Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate ------ 2026:JHHC:12144 30/Dated: 15th April, 2026 1. At the outset, it is pertinent to record that during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the original writ petitioner, namely Krishna Kumar Singh, expired. Consequent thereto, by order dated 10.08.2021 passed in I.A. No. 6581 of 2019, this Court directed the substitution of his wife, Ruma Singh, in place of the deceased writ petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the writ petitioner shall hereinafter be construed as the original writ petitioner. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein for the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ especially in the nature of mandamus for commanding upon the respondents to pay the monetary benefits of stagnation increments with effect from 01.01.1998 instead of w.e.f. 15.09.2000 while considering the fact that after retirement the notional benefit of stagnation increment was granted to the petitioner vide office order contained in memo no 259 dated 24.04.2012 since 01.01.1998 but monetary benefit has been granted from 15.09.2000. (ii) Further prays for issuance of a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or especially a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the reasoned order contained in memo 1631 dated 09.07.2015 to the extent of that portion whereby and whereunder the benefit of second ACP has been given to the petitioner in pay scale of 5500-9000 instead of pay scale of 6500-10500 and to revise, fix and pay the benefits of second ACP in pay scale of 6500-200-10500 instead of pay scale of 5500-9000 while considering the fact 2026:JHHC:12144 that the petitioner's pay scale would be upgraded within promotional hierarchy of post of his cadre to which the petitioner belongs to as per the scheme of ACP vide resolution 5207 dated 14.08.2002. (iii) Consequent upon giving the benefits of second ACP in the pay scale of 6500-200-10500 the petitioner further prays to revise and fix the pay scale of the petitioner in view of recommendation of 6th pay commission and thereafter in view of scheme of 3rd MACP and pay the difference of arrear of salary to the petitioner from 01.01.1998 to 31.01.2009 (date of retirement) with statutory and penal interest. (iv) Further prays to set aside the calculation chart prepared on 02.02.2016 by the then Principal in charge whereby the respondent authority has advertently submitted that the petitioner was drawing salary in basic pay which starts from 7250/- whereas the petitioner was getting his salary in basic pay of 7000/- from 1997 to till his retirement i.e 31.01.2009 and pass/give order (s)/ direction(s) to the respondent authority to prepare afresh calculation chart as per the legally entitlement of the petitioner. (v) The petitioner further prays to revise and re-fix the pension of the petitioner after taking into consideration of scheme of second ACP, 6th pay commission and 3rd MACP and to pay the difference of arrear of pension to the petitioner from 31.01.2009(date of retirement) to till now with statutory and penal interest. (vi) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) for commanding upon the respondents 2026:JHHC:12144 to pay the amount of Rs. 8,750/- with respect to two bills dated 27.03.2004 which was paid by the petitioner for the work of repair and maintenance taken in the Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad. Factual Matrix: 3. The brief facts, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is required to referred herein which reads as under: (i) It is a case where the petitioner is a retired instructor of Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad under the Science and Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand. (ii) The petitioner was appointed as an instructor on 20.01.1975 after rendering more than 34 years of service, was superannuated on 31.01.2009 as an Instructor from the Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad vide memo No. 51 dated 30.01.2009. (iii) Further, the petitioner has not got any promotion during the unblemished service period of 34 years. (iv) The petitioner was entitled for the benefit of stagnation increments which were due from 01.01.1998, but then it was not granted to the petitioner because service book of the petitioner was lost from the office. (v) Further, vide office order contained in memo no 1306 dated 14.10.2005, all the employees except the petitioner have been granted the benefits of first and second Assured Career Progression (ACP) on recommendation of departmental Screening Committee in light of Resolution No. 5207 dated 14.08.2002 of Finance Department and without assigning any reason, the name 2026:JHHC:12144 of the petitioner was not considered for the same. Although the Petitioner was also legally entitled for the benefit of first and second ACP as per the scheme. (vi) Further, the petitioner has also not got House Rent Allowance for the period from January 2006 to August 2008 which was stopped without any reasonable cause. (vii) The petitioner had been receiving his un-revised salary in the basic pay of Rs 7000/-from 01.01.1996 to till his retirement i.e. 31.01.2009 and ad hoc pension of the petitioner was fixed on the basis of such un-revised pay. (viii) The petitioner has been granted neither benefits of first & second ACP scheme nor 3rd MACP scheme nor benefit of stagnation increment nor sixth pay revision till his retirement. (ix) The petitioner has made several requests and representation before the respondent authority to consider his claim of stagnation increment, ACP, MACP and sixth pay revision, but they were sitting tight over the same. (x) Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a writ petition being W.P.S. No. 5715 of 2012 which was disposed of on 10.12. 2012 by this Court in the light of the statements made by the learned counsel for the respondents with the following direction that "let petitioner move a detailed representation before the respondent no 2 within 30 days from today and the case of the petitioner shall be examined in the light of the order contained in Annexure 12 within 60 days, thereafter and amount found due, if any shall be paid in favor of the 2026:JHHC:12144 petitioner soon thereafter”. (xi) Thereafter, the petitioner has made a detailed representation on 09.01.2013 before the Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand wherein the claims of first & second ACP, sixth pay revision, third MACP as well as stagnation increment etc. have been claimed and the respondent authority has neither considered the claim of the petitioner nor paid any amount in revised pay scale within the period as stipulated in the order dated 10.12.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5715/2015. (xii) Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the Contempt case being Cont. (C) No. 757 of 2013 for the compliance of the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5715/2015. (xiii) During pendency of the said contempt the Principal Secretary, Science & Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand has passed a reasoned order dated 09.07.2015 in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No 5715 of 2012, order dated 10.12.2012 whereby and whereunder the benefit of second ACP has been granted to the petitioner in pay scale of 5,500 - 9,000 instead of 6,500-10,500 without considering the fact that concerned employee will get the financial up-gradation in the pay scale of prescribed promotional hierarchy of the post of the cadre to which the employee belongs to as per the scheme of ACP vide Resolution No 5207 dated 14.08.2002. (xiv) Thereafter, in view of the submissions made in the show cause filed on 02.02.2016 in the said contempt case , the Court while 2026:JHHC:12144 observing that there is no willful disobedience by the respondents, had dismissed the said contempt case by giving liberty to the petitioner that if the applicant wants to challenge the order passed by the respondents and calculation made by the respondents and if any further amount is demanded by the applicant, he is at liberty to file any application before appropriate authority in accordance with law. (xv) It is the case of the petitioner that through his representation, petitioner has made two requests firstly to add the period of ad hoc service for giving the benefit of second ACP and secondly to grant second ACP in the pay scale of 6500-10500 like similarly situated person Sri Jawahar Lal Yadav but the authority concerned has not considered in and mentioned anything regarding prayer of grant of stagnation increment, amount of bill which has been paid by the petitioner and the interest on delayed payment of salary and retiral benefits in its order dated 09.07.20215. (xvi) Further, it has been stated that the department has not granted benefit of second ACP in pay scale of 6500-10500 to the colleague of the petitioner, Sri Jawahar Lal Yadav, but it has only been confirmed by the department which was fixed by the Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad, which is found erroneous during scrutiny. Therefore, the pay scale of Sri Jawahar Lal Yadav has been modified from 6500-10500 to 5500-9000 by letter no 1627 dated 09.07.2015. (xvii) Further, the petitioner was aggrieved and dissatisfied with the 2026:JHHC:12144 calculation chart made on 02.02.2016 by the Principal, Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad because the calculation chart made by the Principal, Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad is totally false and incorrect. (xviii) The calculation chart dated 02.02.2016 made by the Principal, Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad contains and discloses the following facts whereby the petitioner suffers huge financial loss: In the calculation chart monetary benefit of stagnation increment has not been considered. Vide office order contained in memo no 259 dated 24.04.2012 whereby the notional stagnation increment has been given to the petitioner from 01.01.1998 but actual monetary benefit of stagnation increment has been considered from 15.11.2000 and consequently petitioner was not given arrear of monetary benefit of stagnation increment from 01.01.1998 to 15.11.2000 while other similarly situated person were receiving monetary benefits of stagnation increment from 01.01.1998 and the petitioner does not. In calculation chart column "pay already drawn" discloses that the petitioner was receiving his salary in the basic pay which starts from 7250 but in actual he was receiving his salary in basic pay of 7000 from 1996 to till his retirement i.e. 31.01.2009 continuously which is quite evident from memo 642 dated. 10.11.2010 as well as from year wise monthly particulars of receiving and deduction of salary and allowances. In calculation chart, salary calculated in the column of 2026:JHHC:12144 pay Admissible" is also incorrect, and under estimated because the monetary benefit of stagnation increments with effect from 01.01.1998, sixth pay revision, house rent allowance has not been taken into consideration. Here petitioner humbly. submits that he has also prepared a calculation chart for which he is legally entitled to. In calculation chart, House rent allowance from January, 2006 to August, 2008 was neither calculated nor given to the petitioner whereas he is legally entitled for the same as per resolution of finance department. That calculation chart is made on 02.02.2016 but difference of arrear of pension from 31.01.2009 (date of retirement) to till now has neither been prepared nor paid. (xix) Further case of the petitioner that the petitioner had paid rupees 8750/- with respect to two bills dated 17.08.2004 and 18.08.2004 for the work of repairing and reconditioning of the machines which was done for the Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad as per order of the then principal in charge and thereafter petitioner has claimed the dues amount of bill from the principal in charge but still same has not been reimbursed to the petitioner. (xx) Being aggrieved from the above, the writ petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 4. It is a case of the writ petitioner that even though he has been appointed way back in the year 1975 as Instructor in the Government Polytechnic College, Dhanbad which is under the control 2026:JHHC:12144 of Science and Technology Department and he has not been extended with any benefit of upgradation in pay-scale in pursuance of the Resolution No. 5207 as contained in Memo No. 1306 dated 14.10.2005. 5. It has been stated that it would be evident from Annexure 8, dated 29.09.2008 even then as per which the writ petitioner is entitled to get the pay-scale attached to the post of Workshop Superintendent, i.e., the pay of scale of 6500-200-10500, the respondent authority has denied the said claim by passing the impugned order i.e. Memo No. 1631 dated 09.07.2015, being aggrieved from the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner: 6. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the writ petitioner assisted by Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel on record, has submitted that there is no basis of denial of pay scale of 6500-200-10500, i.e., the pay scale attached to the post of Workshop Superintendent, since the Officer on Special Duty has already made a correspondence to the in- charge Principal of the Government Polytechnic College, Adityapur referring therein the hierarchies of the post which starts from the post of Junior Instructor attached to the pay-scale of 4500-125-7000, Foreman attached to the pay scale of 5000-150-8000 and Workshop Superintendent attached to the pay scale of 6500-200-10500, but the respondent authorities in complete denial of the same, has passed the impugned order denying the pay scale of 6500-200-10500, therefore 2026:JHHC:12144 the present writ petition. Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent: 7. Per Contra, Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the State assisted by his associate counsel Mr. Abhinay Kumar, has submitted by referring the statements indulged in various paragraphs of the counter-affidavit that there is no recruitment /promotion rule having the hierarchies of the post of Instructor in the State Polytechnic College, and as such, the petitioner is only entitled to get the pay scale as available in Schedule-I to the Resolution dated 14.08.2002. 8. It has been submitted that since the upgradation in the pay scale is under the ACP Scheme by way of introducing the resolution dated Resolution dated 14.08.2002, therefore merely on the basis of the communication which is being made that too by the officer in the rank of Officer on Special Duty, the said communication cannot be prevailed upon the resolution dated 14.08.2002 formulated by way of policy decision. Analysis 9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading made in the writ petition as also the counter affidavit. 10. The basis of the claim which is being made on behalf of the petitioner by filing the writ petition is a communication made by one Officer on Special Duty dated 29.09.2008 which is available in Annexure 8 at Page 54 and relying upon the same, the claim is being made by the 2026:JHHC:12144 petitioner that he is entitled to get upgradation in the pay scale by way of first upgradation under the ACP Scheme in the pay scale 5000- 150-8000, and thereafter, the pay scale of 6500-200-10500 attached to the pay scale of Workshop Superintendent. 11. While on the other hand, the State counsel has submitted that merely on the basis of the communication which is being made that too by the officer in the rank of Officer on Special Duty, the said communication cannot be prevailed upon the resolution dated 14.08.2002 formulated by way of policy decision. 12. The law is well-settled that if the State has taken a policy decision, under the rule of executive business stipulated under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India then it is the policy decision which is to prevail upon any executive instruction, for ready reference, the Article 166(3) is also being referred as under: - “(3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion.” 13. Thus, it is evident that all the actions at the level of the State is to be taken in the name of the Governor. Further, we are living in the democratic set up wherein the Governor is the head of the State, therefore, all the executive business which is to be performed, is to be in the name of the Governor. The Governor, is to act upon the aid and advice of the council of minister. Hence, whatever decision is being taken in the name of the Governor, the same is with the approval of the council of ministers or the Cabinet of the State. 2026:JHHC:12144 14. Thus, the Governor or any individual either holding the post of President or the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister or any Departmental Minister is having no jurisdiction to take its own independent decision, rather, the decision is to be approved by the Cabinet and thereafter, it is to be sealed by the President or the Governor, as the case may be, for taking the shape of the order said to be issued in the name of the Union or the State. 15. Collective System of the Government means that the decision is to be taken collectively, i.e., by other Council of Minister or by the Cabinet, and neither the President nor the Governor is to exercise the executive functions personally thereafter, approved by the President or the Governor, as the case may be. The aforesaid issue has well been considered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the implication of rules of executive business in the case of Samsher Singh Vrs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (1974) 2 SCC 831, wherein, it has been held at paragraph 48 & 57, which reads as under:- “48. The President as well as the Governor is the constitutional or formal head. The President as well as the Governor exercises his powers and functions conferred on him by or under the Constitution on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers, save in spheres where the Governor is required by or under the Constitution to exercise his functions in his discretion. Wherever the Constitution requires the satisfaction of the President or the Governor for the exercise by the President or the Governor of any power or function, the satisfaction required by the Constitution is not the personal satisfaction of the President or Governor but the 2026:JHHC:12144 satisfaction of the President or Governor in the constitutional sense in the Cabinet system of Government, that is, satisfaction of his Council of Ministers on whose aid and advice the President or the Governor generally exercises all his powers and functions. The decision of any Minister or officer under Rules of Business made under any of these two Articles 77(3) and 166(3) is the decision of the President or the Governor respectively. These articles did not provide for any delegation. Therefore, the decision of a Minister or officer under the Rules of Business is the decision of the President or the Governor. 57. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the President or the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head in the case of the Union and the Chief Minister at the head in the case of State in all matters which vests in the Executive whether those functions are executive or legislative in character. Neither the President nor the Governor is to exercise the executive functions personally. The present appeals concern the appointment of persons other than District Judges to the Judicial Services of the State which is to be made by the Governor as contemplated in Article 234 of the Constitution after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court. Appointment or dismissal or removal of persons belonging to the Judicial Service of the State is not a personal function but is an executive function of the Governor exercised in accordance with the rules in that behalf under the Constitution. 16. Thus, any communication even if passed by Officer of any rank even by the Secretary or Chief Secretary will not have the prevailing effect upon the policy decision of the State which has been issued in the name of the Governor of the State. 17. Herein also the State Government has come out with the resolution 2026:JHHC:12144 on 14.08.2002 under the power conferred under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India laying down the parameter for upgradation of pay scale depending upon the hierarchies that is in order to deal with the situation to evade the stagnation in the service. 18. The Government has also taken care that in a case where the hierarchy of post is not available, then how the benefit of the upgradation is to be given and for the aforesaid purpose, a pay scale is to be given and the same has been referred in the schedule appended to the Resolution dated 14.08.2002. 19. The said resolution, being a policy decision, is binding upon the authority and as such, the communication which has been made by the Officer on Special Duty dated 29.09.2008 as available in Annexure 8 as per Page 54 is having no legal identity in the eye of law. 20. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the reliance which is being placed upon the communication dated 29.09.2008 issued by the Officer on Special Duty showing the hierarchy of the post is having no substance. 21. Accordingly, the said argument is being rejected. 22. Mr. Manoj Tandon, at this juncture, as submitted that the State Government has come out with the rule in the year 2013 which also clarifies that the sanctity of the communication made by Officer on Special Duty dated 29.09.2008 otherwise, there would have been no any occasion for the O.S.D. to make a correspondence to the Principal In-charge, Government Polytechnic College, Adityapur, Jharkhand referring the pay scale attached to the different post showing the 2026:JHHC:12144 hierarchy of the post of Instructor. 23. In the aforesaid context it is considered view of this Court that there is no question of any benefit on the basis of the recruitment/promotion rule having been brought in the year 2013 since the writ petitioner has already superannuated 31.01.2009. 24. There is no concept of retrospective application of any rule after the superannuation of the concerned employee and the fact remains that due to non-availability of recruitment rule, since the State Government has come out with the pay scale for the purpose of consideration of the grant of upgradation in pay scale as per the pay scale referred in the schedule which the State Government is having no objection in extending the pay scale attached to the post as has been recorded in the submission of Mr. M.K. Roy, learned State Counsel. 25. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the writ petition lacks merit, hence dismissed and as such disposed of. 26. So far as the prayer No. (iv) is concerned, this Court before deal with the same needs to refer herein the aforesaid prayer which reads as under: “ iv. Further prays to set aside the calculation chart prepared on 02.02.2016 by the then Principal in charge whereby the respondent authority has advertently submitted that the petitioner was drawing salary in basic pay which starts from 7250/- whereas the petitioner was getting his salary in basic pay of 7000/- from 1997 to till his retirement i.e 31.01.2009 and pass/give order (s)/ direction(s) to the respondent authority to prepare afresh calculation chart as per the legally entitlement of the petitioner.” 2026:JHHC:12144 27. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no reference with respect to the aforesaid prayer in the counter- affidavit except the amount which has been paid by way of salary on the basis of upgradation in pay scale up to 14.11.2000. 28. The said fact has been admitted by the learned State Counsel after scrutinizing the counter affidavit meticulously and he, in all fairness, has submitted that the amount which has been paid up to 14.11.2000 is also being admitted by the petitioner and as such there will be no difficulty with the State authority in making payment of the said amount which has been paid up to 14.11.2000 if paid up to the date of the requirement of the deceased employee, i.e., 31.01.2009. 29. This Court considering the aforesaid contention is hereby directing the Secretary of the concerned Department, i.e., Department of Science and Technology, Jharkhand to release the salary from 15.11.2000 till the date of retirement on the basis of the pay scale based upon that the salary was paid up to 14.11.2000. 30. Let the difference of arrears of salary as directed above be paid within the period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 31. This order will be communicated by the petitioner within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order to the Secretary of the concerned department. 32. In consequence of the difference of the arrears of the pensionary benefits by revising the pension already fixed by passing the consequently order in pursuance thereof. 2026:JHHC:12144 33. The said exercise will be completed within a period of 10 weeks on the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 34. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 15th April, 2026 Samarth/N.A.F.R.