Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 705 (JHR)

Brajesh Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2014-07-07

P.P.BHATT, R.BANUMATHI

body2014
Judgment This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3027 of 2013 dated 28.10.2013, in and by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the services of the petitioners-appellants were terminated on 13.02.1997 by the officers of the State of Bihar, High Court of Jharkhand has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 2. The 1st appellant was appointed as a Technical Assistant vide order dated 25.11.1993 and continued to render his services till 14.02.1997 and services of the 1st appellant was terminated vide order dated 13.02.1997. The 2nd appellant was also appointed as a Technical Assistant vide order dated 8.5.1993 and he continued to remain in service till 13.02.1997 and services of the 2nd appellant was terminated vide order dated 13.02.1997. The case of the appellants is that they continued to approach the respondents for payments of salary dues/arrears of bonus, but there was no response. Thereafter, the appellants filed the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3027 of 2013 seeking direction upon the respondents-State of Jharkhand for payments of salary dues/arrears of bonus for the period between 1993 to 14.02.1997. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 28.10.2013 holding that since the services of the petitioners-appellants were terminated on 13.02.1997 by the officers of the State of Bihar, High Court of Jharkhand has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 3. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Heard Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and J.C to S.C. III, Mr. A.K. Mishra for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that as per provision made under Section 27 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, the High Court of Jharkhand shall have jurisdiction over the entire territory of State of Jharkhand and while so, the learned Single Judge was not right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It is further submitted that when the appellants were in service, they were working only in Ranchi and, therefore, direction be issued upon respondents-State of Jharkhand to pay salary dues/arrears of bonus for the period 1993-14.02.1997. It is further submitted that in the case of Bashith Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs. It is further submitted that when the appellants were in service, they were working only in Ranchi and, therefore, direction be issued upon respondents-State of Jharkhand to pay salary dues/arrears of bonus for the period 1993-14.02.1997. It is further submitted that in the case of Bashith Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors in W.P.(C) No. 2332 of 2003, the prayer of the similarly situated persons have been allowed by this Court on 18.12.2008. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents-State of Jharkhand submitted that the services of the appellants were terminated in the year 1997 and when the State of Jharkhand came into existence on 15.11.2000, the appellants were no longer in the services of the erstwhile State of Bihar and, therefore, they cannot be considered to be the government servants under the newly constituted State of Jharkhand. 7. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents-State of Jharkhand that the order of termination was passed by the State of Bihar and since appellants were not in the government service at the time of bifurcation of the State of Bihar (15.11.2000), no direction could be given to the respondents-State of Jharkhand to pay the salary dues/arrears of bonus. In so far as the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants rendered in the case of Bashith Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors in W.P.(C) No. 2332 of 2003, by perusal of which, it appears that counsel for the respondent made a concession and on that concession the writ petition was allowed, therefore, the above judgment is of no assistance to the appellant. 8. We do not find any reason warranting interference with the order of the learned Single. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.