01Facts
The petitioner, a clerk appointed on 17 May 1991, retired on 31 May 2021.
¶ 3–4He claimed that his first ACP and second MACP should have been granted in higher pay scales from 17 May 2003 and 17 May 2011, respectively, rather than in the scales originally allowed
¶ 3–4In an earlier writ petition, in which he was petitioner No. 18, the High Court directed the authorities to consider the employees’ claims; the State’s appeal was later dismissed as not pressed
¶ 5–6The Regional Deputy Director of Education (RDDE) subsequently issued orders extending the claimed benefits to the petitioner
¶ 6–7The District Superintendent of Education (DSE), the drawing and disbursing officer, nevertheless rejected his claim by Memo No. 2240 dated 20 December 2024.
¶ 7–902Issues
i.1. Whether the DSE could reject the petitioner’s claim after the RDDE had issued orders extending the claimed ACP/MACP benefits
¶ 10, 13–14ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of the benefits in accordance with the RDDE’s orders and the outcome of the earlier litigation
¶ 5–7, 12–1503Law Applied
The judgment cites no specific statute, service rule, or judicial precedent as the basis for decision
¶ 12–15It applies the administrative principle that, where the competent higher authority has already decided an employee’s entitlement, the drawing and disbursing officer is to implement that decision and pay the resulting benefits, rather than issue a contrary decision
¶ 13–14The Court also treated the earlier writ proceedings and the subsequent RDDE orders as supporting the petitioner’s entitlement to the benefits
¶ 5–7, 12–1304Reasoning
The Court relied on the earlier writ proceedings and the RDDE’s orders of 30 January 2019, 31 January 2020, and 24 July 2023, which extended the claimed benefits to the petitioner
¶ 5–7, 13The Director’s counter-affidavit acknowledged that the RDDE had already taken a decision in the petitioner’s favour
¶ 14In those circumstances, the DSE, acting as drawing and disbursing officer, was required to implement the decision; the Court found no basis for the DSE to reject the claim contrary to the RDDE’s orders
¶ 13–1405Holding
The High Court quashed and set aside the DSE’s Memo No. 2240 dated 20 December 2024.
¶ 15–16It directed the respondents to grant the petitioner the first ACP in the scale of ₹5,000–8,000 from 17 May 2003 and the second MACP in the scale of ₹5,500–9,000 (revised to PB-II ₹9,300–34,800 with Grade Pay ₹4,600) from 17 May 2011, within ten weeks of receipt of the order.
¶ 15–16The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs
¶ 15–16Original Court PDF
DINESH KUMAR PRADHANvsSTATE OF JHARKHAND THRO THE SECRETARY/PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY DEPTT.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
