Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2178 (JHR)

State of Jharkhand v. Shyam Kishore Prasad

2017-12-18

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. 1. Reference may be made to the order dated 22nd November, 2017 which reads as under: "Heard learned counsel for the appellant. L.P.A. No. 421 of 2009 has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand being aggrieved by the order dated 18th March, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1317 of 2008 decided along with two other writ petitions W.P.(S) No. 5496 of 2007 and W.P.(S) No. 6435 of 2008. L.P.A. No. 422 of 2009, also on board today, by the State of Jharkhand is directed against the same common impugned order dated 18th March, 2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6435 of 2008. Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to state as to whether any Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred in the other writ petition W.P.(S) No. 5496 of 2007 which was also allowed by the common order dated 18th March, 2009. Learned counsel for the State has made submissions by referring to para9 of the memo of appeals that a similar issue was in consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10446 of 2008. It is further stated therein that the Apex Court had stayed the order dated 10th December, 2008 passed by this Court in Contempt (Civil) Case No. 728 of 2006 arising out of W.P. (S) No. 6893 of 2004. Learned counsel for the appellant has also stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment dated 10.07.2009 allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 249 of 2007. Copy of the orders passed in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 10446 of 2008 and Civil Appeal No. 4248 of 2009 arising therefrom have been produced. He has also produced the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 249 of 2007 after the same was remanded by the Apex Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by judgment dated 19.06.2015 the learned Division Bench has dismissed the appeal as being devoid of any merit. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner in L.P.A. No. 422 of 2009 has pointed out that the writ petitioner has died on 16th May, 2009 after passing of the impugned judgment but before filing of the appeal. It however, appears that the legal representatives of the deceased-respondent have been substituted by order dated 5th April, 2012. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner in L.P.A. No. 422 of 2009 has pointed out that the writ petitioner has died on 16th May, 2009 after passing of the impugned judgment but before filing of the appeal. It however, appears that the legal representatives of the deceased-respondent have been substituted by order dated 5th April, 2012. We are not sure whether Letters Patent Appeal in the other connected writ petition was filed and if filed, is pending or disposed of. Office is directed to report as to whether any Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18th March, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5496 of 2007 and its status. Even if no L.P.A. has been filed against common order passed in the said writ petition, the records of W.P.(S) No. 5496 of 2007 be placed along with the instant appeals on the next date. Matter is passed over for the day." 2. Reference may also be made to the previous order dated 6th December, 2017 which is also being reproduced hereunder: "Pursuant to our previous order the office has indicated that L.P.A. No. 420 of 2009 filed against the common impugned order dated 18th March, 2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5496 of 2007 and other two writ petitions, stood dismissed for default on 15th April, 2010. Learned Sr. S.C.III has informed us today that the restoration petition being C.M.P. No. 448 of 2010 also stood dismissed on 22nd November, 2017. Since the matter is old, learned Sr. S.C.III also faced difficulties in being ready with the records. We, therefore, direct the Inspector General of Police (Personnel) Respondent No. 3 or Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) Respondent No. 4, Government of Jharkhand to be present on the next date along with the relevant records. Let the matter appear on 18th December, 2017 under the same heading." 3. The Inspector General of Police (Personnel) respondent no. 3, Mr. Murari Lal Meena is present today with entire records of the case. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel No.III, Mr. Srijit Choudhary submits, on instructions, that in L.P.A. No. 421 of 2009, (arising out of writ petition W.P.(S) No. 1317 of 2008 filed by Shyam Kishore Prasad) the appellant department has accepted the judgment passed in the writ petition W.P.(S) No. 1317 of 2008 by learned Single Judge. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel No.III, Mr. Srijit Choudhary submits, on instructions, that in L.P.A. No. 421 of 2009, (arising out of writ petition W.P.(S) No. 1317 of 2008 filed by Shyam Kishore Prasad) the appellant department has accepted the judgment passed in the writ petition W.P.(S) No. 1317 of 2008 by learned Single Judge. On consideration of the representations of the writ petitioner dated 12th January, 2011 and 5th April, 2011 the benefit of notional promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector with effect from 14th July, 1984 and to the post of Inspector with effect from 27th June, 2006 has been granted vide order contained in letter no. 360/P/9th February, 2012. The said writ petitioner has retired on 31st December, 2012. Therefore, there is no reason to press the challenge to the impugned judgment any further. Learned State Counsel has also referred to the order passed by learned Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 249 of 2007 pursuant to its remand by Hon'ble Supreme Court as an additional ground not to press the instant appeal also. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-State in L.P.A. No. 422 of 2009, Mr. Srijit Choudhary further submits on instruction from Inspector General of Police (Personnel) respondent no. 3 that the case of the writ petitioner, Anand Gorain stands on similar footing to that of Shyam Kishore Prasad. The said petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6435 of 2008 was also aggrieved by shifting of initial date of promotion from 8th June, 1983 to 20th August, 1994 on the post of Sub-Inspector. 6. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 18th March, 2009 passed in analogous writ petitions had directed the Respondent-Department to treat the effective date of promotion from the initial date of promotion as prayed for and allowed consequential benefits to follow. The said petitioner has died just before filing of the instant appeal on 16th May, 2009 and has also been substituted by his legal heirs as taken note of the order dated 22nd November, 2017. The Appellant-Department has therefore no reason to take a different view in the case of said writ petitioner from that of the other similarly situated employee like Shyam Kishore Prasad. For the same reason, therefore, the appellant does not intend to press the instant appeal either. 7. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the State made on instructions from the respondent no. 3, Mr. For the same reason, therefore, the appellant does not intend to press the instant appeal either. 7. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the State made on instructions from the respondent no. 3, Mr. Murari Lal Meena, Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Govt. of Jharkhand. In view of the background facts noted above, we find that the appellants have granted the benefit of promotion from the original date to the petitioner Shyam Kishore Prasad in the impugned judgment dated 18th March, 2009 passed by learned Single Judge. The case of the writ petitioner Anand Gorain (now deceased) also stands on same footing. 8. In that view of the matter, prayer made by the appellant-Sate is allowed. The instant appeals are dismissed as not pressed. 9. Presence of Mr. Murari Lal Meena, Inspector General of Police(Personnel) is dispensed with.