Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1823 (JHR)

Kumari Archana v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-31

DHIRUBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2017
ORDER : Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. I.A. No. 3756 of 2017 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 82 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially in paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 82 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. I.A. No. 3756 of 2017 is, therefore, allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 256 of 2017 3. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5146 of 2016 dated 5th January, 2017, whereby, the petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed. Reasons: 4. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal for the following facts and reasons: (i) This appellant is the original petitioner, who was working as a General Science Teacher and also as a Warden-cum-Teacher at Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Deori, District-Giridih. (ii) It further appears from the facts of the case especially from Annexure-3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal that the contract of this appellant was terminated vide order dated 1st October. 2008 because of the misconduct which inclusive of the absenteeism etc. Thus, earlier contract comes to an end and earlier service also comes to an end. (iii) Thereafter, it appears that again she was appointed on fresh terms and conditions on 3rd January. 2011 vide order at Annexure-4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. She was appointed with all clarity in the letter at Annexure-4 dated 3rd January, 2011 that neither claim of earlier service shall be entertained nor she will be entitled for any financial benefits of her earlier service. Looking to Annexure-4, it has also been clarified that she will get salary for the initial or basic pay scale. Thus, second service contract was fresh. New service on fresh terms and conditions, has no relevance with earlier service nor any financial claim on the basis of earlier service shall be extended to this appellant. Looking to Annexure-4, it has also been clarified that she will get salary for the initial or basic pay scale. Thus, second service contract was fresh. New service on fresh terms and conditions, has no relevance with earlier service nor any financial claim on the basis of earlier service shall be extended to this appellant. Letter at Annexure-4 dated 3rd January, 2011 is explicitly clear and unambiguous. This second employment letter was accepted by this appellant and has been acted upon also. (iv) Now, this appellant (original petitioner) is claiming 50% enhancement of salary on the basis of earlier service as per letter which is at Annexure-5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal dated 7th September, 2012. This cannot be given to this appellant because earlier services comes to an end with the end of contract vide order dated 1st October. 2008. Approximately 2 1/2 years' period have lapsed and, thereafter, this appellant was appointed on fresh terms and conditions as per Annexure-4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. This aspect of the matter has been appreciated correctly by the learned Single Judge and, hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(S) No. 5146 of 2016 vide judgment and order dated 5th January, 2017. Any amount which was paid by some clerical error is bound to be recovered from such type of appellant. We see no reason to quash letter dated 27th July, 2016. The benefit on the basis of earlier service cannot be granted to this appellant. This is the crux of the matter which is explicitly clear, looking to Annexure-4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.