Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2404 (JHR)

State of Jharkhand v. Ram Kishore Singh ‘Arbind’, Son of Late Nand Kishore Singh

2018-10-30

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2018
ORDER : 1. This appeal by State of Jharkhand and its officers is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge disposing of a writ petition filed by the Respondent No.1 with the following direction :- “Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. In view of the fact, that the Principal Secretary, Labour Employment and Training Department, Government of Jharkhand has already considered the matter and passed an order of joining subject to condition as any order passed in L.P.A. No. 344 of 2012, I hereby direct the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the recommendation of the Principal Secretary preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order”. 2. There have been disputes at several levels in the service career of the respondent-writ petitioner but as of now most of the disputes stand set at rest as he has superannuated on 31st July, 2018. The writ petitioner originally was an employee of Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union (BISCOMAN). He was subsequently taken in the Labour, Employment and Training Department of the Government of Bihar. This shifting, we are apprised by learned counsel appearing for the parties, was on deputation. Subsequently, there has been dispute on continuance of service of the writ petitioner in the same department but the writ petitioner remained in service within the territory of Jharkhand prior to coming into operation of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. The last dispute in course of service career of the writ petitioner related to his transfer as Principal of Industrial Training Institute, Sahebganj. It is the writ petitioner’s case that due to illness of his wife he could not join the said post. The reliefs prayed for by the writ petitioner have been summarized in the first paragraph of the judgment under appeal and these are :- “The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court with a prayer to consider his representations regarding acceptance of joining, and for grant of earn leave for the period from 04.07.2014 to 10.03.2015 and also requesting to pay him salary with effect from 04.07.2014 to 10.03.2015 and also from 11.03.2015 to till date”. 3. 3. As it has been recorded in the judgment under appeal, the case of the writ petitioner was under consideration at the time of delivery of judgment. It is also recorded in the judgment under appeal that the respondent authorities had taken note of the recommendation/order on his salary and they were going to consider the case of the writ petitioner regarding his salary as well as joining. It was in this perspective the aforesaid directions were issued by the learned First Court. There was no mandate of the learned First Court that the consideration would have to be in a particular manner. 4. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant however has submitted that the representation of the writ petitioner has been rejected in substance. The rejection order is the subject matter of a contempt proceeding which is pending before the Court having contempt jurisdiction. 5. In this appeal, we do not want to enter into the controversy as to whether the manner in which the consideration has taken place constitutes proper compliance of the direction of the learned First Court or not. That issue is already subject matter of the Contempt action. So far as the judgment and order under appeal is concerned, only a direction has been issued for consideration of the case of the petitioner in view of the recommendation of the Principal Secretary within a given time frame. We have already referred to the submissions made on behalf of the State before the learned First Court. 6. Having considered such submissions, we do not find any error in the judgment under appeal. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 7. As we are disposing of the appeal, the connected applications being I.A. No. 2495 of 2018 and I.A. No.7450 of 2018 shall also stand disposed of. Appeal disposed of.