Rajeshwar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC16 Jun 2017WPC/252/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Larger Bench of the Jharkhand High Court answered a reference regarding surplus employees of the Adult Education Scheme. It held that services rendered under the centrally sponsored, temporary scheme do not constitute substantive government employment for pension purposes.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajeshwar Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand And… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶296

Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, H.R.D. Dept., Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Director, Primary, Secondary and Mass Education, State of Jharkhand 4. The Accountant General, Ranchi, Jharkhand ---- ---- Respondents with W.P. (S) No. 4963 of 2013
1. Sanjay Prasad Keshri
2. Pankaj Prasad ---- ---- --- Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2 The Secretar HRD Dept Ranchi Jharkhand
. y, ... ., , 3. The Director, Primary, Secondary and Public Education, State of Jharkhand 4. The Accountant General(A&E), Ranchi, Jharkhand ---- --- Respondents with W.P. (S) No. 5323 of 2013 ---
1. Md. Mozammil Hasan 2. Bhola Nath Shah --- ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
4. The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of Jharkhand
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka
6. The District Agriculture Officer, Dumka
7. The District Education Officer, Dumka
8. The District Treasury Officer, Dumka --- --- Respondents with
W.P. (S) No. 5872 of 2013
Ambika Prasad ---- ---- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, H.R.D Dept., Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. The Director Primary Secondary and Mass Education State of Jharkhand
, , , 4. The Accountant General, Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand --- Respondents with W.P. (S) No. 6107 of 2013
1. Mahendra Nath Mahto
2. Diwakar Singh ---- ---- --- Petitioners
V
ersus 1 The State of Jharkhand
. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
4.The Secretary, Ministry of Arts, Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs, Govt.of Jharkhand
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka
6. The District Sports Officer, Dumka
7 The Assistant Director Arts Culture and Youth Affairs Dumka
. , , , 8. The District Treasurer Officer, Dumka ---- ---- Respondents with W.P. (S) No. 6969 of 2013
1. Md. Mozammil Hassan
2. Md. Tejamul Ansari @ Tejamul Ansari 3. Sadhana Ojha

¶382

Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur ---6. The Accountant General, Jharkhand ---Respondents with W.P. (S) No. 5771 of 2014 Basudeo Chourasia --------Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Human Resources 3. The Director (Primary Education), Govt. of Jharkhand 4. The Commissioner, Food and Supply Department, Govt. of Jharkhand 5. District Supply Officer, Chatra ------6. Accountant General, Jharkhand --Respondents with W.P. (S) No. 676 of 2015 1. Surun Soren 2. Sunil Kumar Sinha --------Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Human Resources and Development, Govt of Jharkhand 3. The Director, Mass Education and Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra ------5. The District Supply Officer, Chatra Respondents with W.P. (S) No. 981 of 2015 Santosh Kumar Sinha --------Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Human Resource Development, Govt. of Jharkhand 3. The Secretary, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs, Govt. of Jharkhand 4. The Director, Primary and Mass Education, Govt. of Jharkhand 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra 6. The District Supply Officer, Chatra ---7 The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand --Respondents with W.P. (S) No. 371 of 2016 Anil Kumar Upadhyay --------Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand 3. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand 4. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand 5. The District Education Officer, Ramgarh ------6. The District Treasurer Officer, Ramgarh Respondents with W.P. (S) No. 1865 of 2016 Ganpat Kumar Bhagat --------Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of Jharkhand 4. The Director, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of Jharkhand 5. The Assistant Director, Provident Fund, Govt. of Jharkhand 6.The Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer cum District

¶429

Petitioners in these writ petitions (except few referred to in the subsequent paragraphs) were appointed under the Adult cum Non Formal Education Project in the erstwhile State of Bihar between the period 1978 to 1990. The project was cosponsored by the Central Government and the State Government. Some of the petitioners were appointed as Adult Education Supervisor while others were appointed in the ministerial cadre such as Stenographer, Clerk cum Accountant, Clerk cum Typist, Peon as well as Drivers. These petitioners were working under the Mass Education/ Non Formal Education Programme at the time of bifurcation of the State and their services fell in the successor State of Jharkhand. The Government of India by the policy decision dated 1.4.2001 closed the Mass Education cum Non Formal Education Project. As a result, Government of Jharkhand declared such employees as surplus w.e.f. 15.5.2001. Many of such employees who were declared surplus stood absorbed by virtue of resolution dated 30.5.2007 bearing memo no. 824 issued by the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand in various department such as Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department, Finance Department, Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department, Urban Development Department etc. on different posts in the prescribed scale of pay. Those who had reached the age of superannuation prior to the notification were not absorbed. As per clause 11 of the notification, the absorption of surplus employees would be treated as new appointment and services rendered prior to their declaration as surplus would not be counted for the purpose of their seniority. They would also not be granted the benefit of pay protection. The notification dated 30.5.2007 shows that total of 756 such employees were declared surplus as on 16.5.2001; 330 belonging to the Supervisor Cadre while 423 belonging to the ministerial cadre;158 persons in the cadre of Supervisor out of 172 were to be absorbed in the prescribed scale of Rs.5000-8000 in the Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department, Finance Department and Commercial Taxes Department and also in the Social Welfare

¶442

. 1.	No. 6065/2008	1.Sumintra Devi widow of late Ram Kripal Sharma 2 Sandeep Kumar Sharma	Appointed as a Peon, Non-formal Education Project, Markachho, Hazaribagh pm 2431981	He died in harness on 19.12.2005 before absorption
2	469/2010	. Badri Narayan Bhagat	.. Initially on December,1980 petitioner's was appointed as Mazdoor in the Department of Adult Education Project, Kathikund, Santhal Parganas, Government of Bihar, Patna (now Jharkhand) and vide order dated 09.06.1981 passed by Director, Adult Education, Bihar,Patna he was regularized	Petitioner superannuated from his service on 31.07.2004 as Driver from District Public Education Officer, Dumka before absorption
3.	2671/2010	Sumitra Devi, Widow of Late Lal Babu Singh	on the permanent post of Driver. Petitioner's Late Husband appointed vide letter dated 06.05.1981, in the office of Adult Education Project at Aurangabad ii i	Petitioner's Late Husband died on 04.05.2004
4.	4400/2010	Kameshwar Prasad Sahu	Dstrct as Jeep Drver. Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Adult Education Supervisor at Basia-cum- Kaamdara, Ghumla by the office	Petitioner superannuated from his service on 31.08.2006
5	6412/2010	1. Most. Kiran Kunwar @ Kiran Devi, W/o- Late Lala Suresh Kunwar 2. Md. Arif, S/o- Late Lala Suresh Kunwar	order no. 1241 dated 29.04.1987 Petitioner was appointed on the post of Adult Education Supervisor on 30.12.1981, vide order dated 06.05.1998	Husband of the petitioner while serving on the post of Project Officer at Barwadih, District- Palamu died in harness on 28.11.2002.
6.	6696/2010	Savita Devi, Wife of Late- Prafulla Ahir	Vide order contained in Memo No. 2887 dated 28.12.1981 issued by the then Director of Adult Education, Bihar on the post of Adult Education Supervisor at Village- Piskatoli, Ghaghara Sindri Ranchi	Petitioner's Late Husband died in harness on 14.01.2004 at Piskatoli, evident from the death certificate.
7.	6835/2011	Smt. Fula Devi, W/o – Late Janeshwar Ram	, , . Petitioner was Appointed as a Clerk in the Education Department, Government of Bihar vide letter of Director, Adult & Non-formal Education in memo no. 952 dated 15.04.1985; thereafter posted on 10.05.1985 at the Adult Education Project Office, Nimdih (Sinhbhum)	He died on 13.05.2006 as also appear from death certificate dated 30.05.2006 .
8.	2431/2013	Smt. Basanti Sarkar	g. Appointed for the post of Supervisor on 26.03.1981 in Jagarnathpur, Chaibasa in Adult Education Program under Education Deartment	Retired on 10.05.2005 as a Project Officer, under the Ministry of HRD, Department of Government of Jharkhand.
9.	4330/2013	Chhotka Hembrom	p. 15.4.1982	Retired on 31.1.2000 as Clerk from the office of Project Officer of Adult-cum-non formal Education, Pakurai-II, Dist- Pakur under the Ministry of HRD, Department of Government of Jharkhand
10.	4963/2013	1. Sanjay Prasad Keshri 2. Pankaj Prasad substituted in place of original petitionerMost. Rajkumri W/o Late Kartik Kushwaha	Joined on 22.10.1973 to the post of Assistant Teacher, Girls Middle School, Chandori, Giridih Vide District Superintendent of Education's Memo No. 736 dated 30.09.1973	. Employee died on 13.07.2004 at about 03.00 PM during treatment in RIIMS Hospital, Ranchi and original petitioner also died during pendency of the writ petition.
11.	4838/2014	Rukmini Devi, W/o Late Nirmal Toppo	Petitioner's husband was appointed to the post of Supervisor vide letter no. 8889 dated 18.12.1981 in Adult Education, Patna. Her husband	Petitioner retired on 12.07.2004 before absorption

¶446

S.N o.	W.P.(S) No.	Petitioner's/ legal heirs name	Date of appointment/ joining	Date of retirement / death
01.	4110/2013	Bholanath Hansda	Petitioner appointed on 19.04.1982 as a Supervisor vide Memo No. 1015 dated 05.04.1982.	Petitioner retired on 20.01.2008
02	2458 of 2008	Pano Devi w/o the deceased employee Mahendra Ram	Date of appointment on 8.12.1970 as Guard in District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh	Retired on 31.8.2007 as Supply Inspector from Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Dept. Died on 1.8.2014
03.	2905/2008	Sadhu Charan Ganjhu	Appointed and joined on the post of Temporary Supervisor by Memo No. 219 dated 12.12.1978 issued by the Directorate, Adult Education Patna.	Superannuated with effect from 31.01.2008 as 'waiting for posting'
04.	1101/2009	Panna Lal Yadav	, Petitioner was appointed as Adult Education Supervisor, Bandhgaon vide office order no. 562 dated 16.03.1981 issued by the office of Director, Adult Education Bihar Patna.	31.08.2007 the date of retirement as Supervisor in the office of Secretary, Finance & Commercial Taxes Department, Ranchi.
05.	3660/2009	Yugal Kishore Prasad	, , Appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the office of Commanding Officer, Muzaffarpur, vide appointment letter no. 5/4/A/618 dated 29.06.1966 issued by Commanding Officer, 3-Bihar EME N.C.C Muzaffarpur.	Retired on 31.1.2008 as Clerk cum typist
06.	3971/2009	Surendra Prasad	, , Petitioner was initially appointed as a Supervisor under the Adult Education Directorate, Bihar, Patna vide memo no. 395 dated 08.03.1979.	Petitioner's Date of retirement 30.9.2007
07.	4702/2009	Adhik Kumar	Vide letter dated 05.12.1975 issued by Superintendent of Library, and appointed on the post of Peon at State Mobile Library Hazaribagh.	Retired on 31.01.2009
08.	693/2010	Prabhu Narayan Pandey	, Vide letter no. 26 dated 23.01.1981, petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon in the office of Adult Education Project Officer, Chatra, Hazaribah	Vide letter no. 445 dated 31.07.2009, petitioner superannuated from his service after attaining 60 years of age.
09.	1560/2010	Vina Singh, Wife of Late Birendra Singh	g. Petitioner's Late Husband Birendra Singh was appointed as Typist-Clerk at Adult Education project, Gandaiya (Giridih) vide letter no. 23 dated 13.07.1984 issued by District, Adult Education Officer Giridih	Died in harness on 10.10.2009 after absorption
10.	2882/2010	Gurupad Singh Munda	, . Vide letter no. 1441 dated 23.09.1980 issued by the Director, Adult Education Bihar, Patna joined his services on 30.09.1980 at Ormanjhi Project as Project Officer.	Vide letter no. 214 dated 31.12.2008 issued by Divisional officer, Pakur, petitioner retired from his services from the post of Supply Inspector from Littipara Block Dist- Pakur.
11.	3410/2010	Sitaram Dutta	On 02.05.1981, petitioner was appointed on the post of Adult Education Supervisor, evident from order no. 1058 dated 02.05.1981.	, Petitioner retired on 31.05. 2007 to the post of Statistical-cum- Evaluator Supervisor at Giridih before absorption

¶448

12.	3513/2010	Subala Devi, Wife of La Krishna Mohan Pandey	te Vide Memo No. 79, Patna, dated 24th January, 1980 issued by the Director, Adult Education, Bihar, Patna for the post of Peon at Sirdala in Nawada District, Bihar.	Petitioner's Late Husband retired on 31.07.2009 on the post of Peon from the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), Department of Commercial Tax, Ranchi Division, Ranchi and her husband died on 10.01.2010.
13.	4129/2010	Chaitan Tanti	Vide order contained in Memo No. 243 dated 03.07.1985 passed by District Adult Education Project Program, Singhbhum, Chaibasa, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon in the Office of Adult Education Project Kuchai.	Retire from his service on 31.01.2010
14.	4277/2010	Dharambir Baitha	, Vide order no. 133 dated 27.01.1979 passed by Director (Adult Education), Bihar, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Adult Education Supervisor in Jamuwa Block, District- Giridih.	Retired from his service on 30.06.2009 on Superannuation.
15.	4278/2010	Parmeshwar Nanda	Vide letter no. 1194 dated 19.08.1980 issued by the then Director, Adult Education, Bihar, Patna, and petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Adult Education Supervisor	Petitioner retired from his service on 31.08.2009
16.	4279/2010	Amulya Hazam	. Vide letter no. 1194 dated 19.08.1980 issued by the Director, Adult Education, Bihar, Patna, the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Adult Education Supervisor.	Petitioner retired from his service on 31.07.2009
17.	4872/2010	Bhagwati Dhiwar	Petitioner was appointed on 11.08.1981t o the post of Peon in the Office of Adult Education Project Dumka	Petitioner, superannuated from his service on 31.07.2010
18.	6641/2010	Balmukund Singh	, . Vide order contained in Memo No. 701 dated 11.03.1986 issued by the then Director of Adult Education, Bihar on the post of Adult Education Supervisor at Village- Barkatha, Hazaribagh.	Petitioner, retired form +2 S.S. High School, Ghaghara, District- Gumla on 30.06.2009.
19.	3153/2011	1. Kamdeo Rai, 2.Premchand Hembrom 3.Bhola Nath Hazam	Pet. No.1 appointed on 23.8.1979. Pet. No. 2 &3 appointed on 2541990	Pet. No. 1 and 3 retired on 30.6.2009 and Pet. No. 2 30.11.2008
20.	5618/2012	Shakti Narayan Thakur	.. Vide letter no. 545 dated 30.04.1979 appointed as Adult Education Supervisor in Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar. And joined his service on 07.05.1979 at Village- Chandan Kiaryi, Dist- Hazaribagh.	Petitioner retired from his service on 31.03.2011.
21.	7232/2012	Mukta Mathur	13.4.1985	Retired on 31.8.2009 as Clerk in Upgraded +2 Adivasi High School, Sitaram Dera, East Singhbhum under the Ministry of HRD, Department of Government of Jharkhand.
22.	292/2013	Md. Rahamatullah	Appointed vide letter no. 232 dated 24.01.1981 under the dept.	Retired on 31.1.2017

¶450

			of Education, Govt. of Bihar and joined as Supervisor
23.	578/2013	Sitaram	Vide order date 25.06.1979 issued by the Director, Adult Education, Bihar, the petitioner was appointed for the post of Peon and posted in the Tamar at Ranchi	Retired on 28.2.2016
24.	2113/2013	Ram Lakhan Sahu	. Petitioner was appointed to the post of Supervisor vide Memo No. 289 Patna dated 28.12.1981 by Director of Adult Education- cum-Joint Secretary, Bihar, Patna	Retired on 31.3.2008 as Clerk in Upgraded +2 High School, Dumri, Tangardih, Gumla under the Ministry of HRD, Department of Government of Jharkhand
25.	4170/2013	Bipin Kumar Jha	. Appointed for the post of Supervisor between 1978 to 1987 in Adult Education.	. Retired on 31.03.2013 as a Clerk-cum-Typist, from Upgraded +2 D.P.M A-High School Nawagarh, Dhanbad, under the Ministry of HRD, Department of Government of Jharkhand
26.	5872/2013	Ambika Prasad	Appointed for the post of Clerk between 1978 to 1986 in Adult Education, Vide Memo No. 2327/Patna dated 03.09.1985 issued by Director, Adult-cum- Non-formal Education, Bihar, Patna	. Retired on 01.08.2013 as Clerk- cum-Typist, from Upgraded +2 High School Kurmichak, Godda, under the Ministry of HRD, Department ,Government of Jharkhand.
27.	141/2014	Raja Ram Mahto	. Petitioner appointed to the post of Supervisor by memo no. 1411/Patna dated 23.09.1980 issued by the office of Director, Adult Education, Bihar	Petitioner retired on 30.06.2013, Ministry of Food , Civil Supply ;and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Jharkhand as Supply Inspector.
28.	2317/2014	Umesh Jha	Petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Accountant in Adult Education, under Education Department, Government of Bihar in the office of Phirtand, Giridih vide letter no. 101/Patna dated 17.01.1984 issued by the office of Directorate, Adult Education, Bihar	Petitioner retired on 28.02.2014. Ministry of Commercial Tax Department , Government of Jharkhand as a Clerk after absorption
29.	2381/2014	Sanatan Soren	Petitioner appointed to the post of Supervisor vide letter memo no. 1015 /Patna dated 05.04.1982 issued by Directorate of Adult Education, Bihar	Petitioner retired from his service on 31..01.2013 as a Upper Division Clerk in Home Department officer at Secretariat, Project building, Dhurva Ranchi under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Jharkhand after absorption
30.	2538/2014	Sangram Das	Appointed on the post of Clerk- cum-Typist in Adult Education, Bihar, under Education Department , Government of Bihar in the office of Simdega , District- Gumla vide letter no. 2327/Patna dated 02.09.1985 issued by the office of the Director, Adult Non-formal Education Bihar	Petitioner retired from his service on 31.07.2012 as Clerk in Upgraded +2 Kalyan High School, Pandu, Palamau, under the Ministry of HRD, Government of Jharkhand.
31.	5106/2014	Murari Prasad	, . Petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Accountant vide letter no. 1440 dated 29.07.1983	Petitioner retired on 31.10.2013 after absorption
32.	5207/2014	Pradhan Mahto	, Petitioner was appointed on the post of Adeshpal/Peon (Padchar)	30.6.2014 after absorption

¶452

			vide memo no. 613 dated 07.08.1981 issued by the officer of Collectorate, Dumka
33.	5771/2014	Basudeo Chourasia	Petitioner was appointed and he joined on 12.05.1980 on the post of Supervisor in Adult Education Project, at Chatra, evident from his appointment letter no. 678 dated 10.05.1980	Petitioner retired on 31.07.2011 as a Supply Inspector, Chatra.
34.	676/2015	1. Surun Soren 2.Sunil Kumar Sinha	Petitioner no. 1 appointed on the post of Supervisor Adult Education Department, by the order of the Director, Bihar, Patna, Vide order no. 232,dated 24.01.1981 and joined on 07.02.1981. Petitioner no. 2 appointed to the post of Supervisor, Adult Education Department by the order of the Director, Adult Education Department , Bihar, Patna vide order no. 634 dated 25.04.1980	Retired from the post of Block Supply Inspector on 31.01.2014 and 31.12.2013 respectively.
35.	981/2015	Santosh Kumar Sinha	Petitioner was appointed on the post of Supervisor in Adult Education Department, by the order of the Director, Adult Education Department, Bihar, Patna vide order no. 634 dated 25.04.1980	Retired from the post of Block Supply Inspector on 31.08.2012

¶454

S.No .	W.P.(S) No.	Petitioner's/ legal heirs name	Date of appointment/ joining	Working
1.	252/2011	Rajeshwar Mishra	Petitioner was duly appointed as Officer-Staff in the Adult and Non-formal Department and was posted against Class IV posts. Appointed on 14.7.1984	working
2.	484/2013	1. Niranjan Thakur 2. Ashok Kumar Mishra 3. Pankaj Kr. Yadav 4. Jagneshwar Kr. Singh 5. Anil Kr. 6. Hari Dutt Choubey	Joined on 6.11.1984, 18.7.1984, 21.4.1984. 11.2.1985, 23.11.1981, 22.12.1983 respectively	working
3.	2378/201 3	Smt. Smriti Kana Sarkar @ Smriti Kala Sarkar	Petitioner was appointed to the post of Supervisor on 26.03.1981 in Noamundi in District Chaibasa in Adult Education Program under Education Department.	working
4.	2804/201 3	Binay Kumar Choudhary	Joined on 21.11.1985 as a Clerk in office of Adult Education officer, Singhbhum, Chaibasa dated 21.11.1985 issued by the District Adult Education Officer, Singhbhum, Chaibasa.	working
5.	5223/201 3	1. Md. Mozammil Hasan 2. Bhola Nath Shah	Petitioner no.1 appointed as Supervisor on 25.5.1983, Petitioner no.2 as Clerk on 7.1.1986	working
6.	6107/201 3	1.Mahendra Nath Mahto 2. Diwakar Singh	Petitioner no. 1 was appointed as a Supervisor on 24.12.1982 at	working

¶456

			Ranchi in Adult Education Department under the HRD Ministry and Petitioner no. 2 was appointed as a Supervisor on 14.06.1982 under the same Adult Education Department under the HRD Ministry .
7.	6969/201 3	1. Md. Mozammil Hassan 2. Md. Tejamul Ansari 3. Sadhana Ojha 4. Rukmani Devi Keshri 5 Meena Sinha	Appointed as Adult Education Supervisor	working
8.	3277/201 4	. 1. Surendra Prasad Rawani 2.Panchannad Dwivedi 3. Bilayati Prasad Singh 4. Sanatan Soren	Petitioner no.1 appointed as a Clerk on 22.02.1985 at Sarwan, Dist-Deoghar in Adult Education Department under the HRD Ministry petitioner no. 2 was appointed as a Clerk on 29.03.1985 at Jamui, Bihar under the same Adult Education Department under the HRD Ministry and petitioner no. 3 was appointed as a Clerk on 17.09.1985 at Sarwan Dist- Deoghar under the same Adult Education Department under the same HRD Ministry and petitioner no. 4 was appointed as a Clerk on 08.04.1985 at Kathikund, Dumka under the same Ministry	working
9.	4501/201 4	1. Anil Kumar Jha 2.Dhirendra Prasad @ Birendra Prasad 3. Lala Uma Shankar Dayal 4. Bindo Mandal 5. Krishna Kumar Karn 6. Deo Shankar Jha 7 Kdhitih R	, The petitioner were appointed to the post of Clerk/Peon in between 1978 to 1987 in Adult Education.	working
10.	371/2016	. ss am Anil Kumar Upadhyay	Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 27.07.1985 at Sasaram, Dist- Rohtas vide memo no. 289 dated 27.07.1985 in Adult Education Department under the HRD Department, Ministry .	working
11.	1865/201 6	Ganpat Kumar Bhagat	Petitioner appointed as a Supervisor in pursuance of Memo No. 1974/Patna dated 28.09.1983 issued by the office of Directorate, Adult Education, Bihar under HRD and joined his service at Vishunupur District- Gumla	working
12.	3333/201 6	Shyam Singh	Petitioner appointed as Clerk- cum-Typist on 22.11.1986 in District Adult Education Officer, Singhbhum, Chaibasa vide memo no. 465/Patna dated 17.10.1986 issued by Adult and Non-formal Education, Bihar, Patna in Adult Education Department under the HRD Mii	working
13.	3400/201 6	Shyam Sundar Prasad	nstry. Petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 09.11.1986 in Adult Education Office, Palamau vide memo no. 01/Palamau dated 27.10.1986 issued by District Adult Education Office, Palamau in Adult Education Department	working

¶460

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners have heavily relied upon the Division Bench judgment of Patna High Court in the case of The Bihar State Adult & Non-formal Educational Employees Association & others Vrs. The State of Bihar & others reported in 1996(2) PLJR 394 in CWJC No. 5036 of 1992 and other analogous cases. Those writ petitions were preferred by the persons holding the post of supervisor under the Adult Education Programme, when their services were terminated consequent upon abolition of posts of supervisor by the Government of India. They had alternatively prayed for their absorption / adjustment in the State Government against any other post equivalent to the post in terms of the resolution dated 5.9.1979 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar. Petitioners herein sought to draw strength from the aforesaid judgment in order to substantiate their plea that all the petitioners after introduction of the Adult Education Programme w.e.f October 1978 fulfilled the requisite criteria and were appointed on regular pay scale in different phases by the State Government on the basis of recommendation of a High Power Selection Committee. Such programme was approved for 5 years by the Planning Commission and grant-in-aid was released by the State Government on yearly basis. The project was intended to impart a functional literacy to illiterate persons in the age group of 15 to 35 years, pre-dominantly living in the rural areas. In compliance of such schemes different Adult Education Programmes were started all over the country including the State of Bihar. The Central Government revised the scheme in the year 1987-88 and suggested the State Government to substantially reduce the number of centers and supervision costs. Persons engaged under the said scheme were required to function only on honorarium basis for limited hours. The State Government abolished 771 posts of Adult Education Supervisors after adjusting them suitably to different posts as per memo dated 19.12.1990. Remaining 361 supervisors continued to work until abolition of the posts in 1991. In the year 1990-91 the Government of India sent revised scheme to the State Government. As per the staffing pattern under this scheme, in place of Project Officer, post of Coordinator at a honorarium of Rs.1800/- per month was created. Since the posts of supervisors

¶466

before they were rendered surplus w.e.f. 15.5.2001 by the Government of Jharkhand for no fault of theirs. The reasons for the petitioners to raise their instant grievance relating to claim of post retirement benefits have been actuated on account of the decision of the Respondent Government of Jharkhand to treat their absorption as fresh appointment and accordingly covered under the CPF scheme brought into w.e.f. 1.12.2004. Petitioners seem to have realized that their past service were not being counted for the purposes of pensionary benefits nor were they treated to be under the G.P.F scheme which came to an end by 30.11.2004. 10. In the aforesaid factual background, divergent views rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in two sets of judgments are required to be dealt with. The first of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate the claim of reckoning their past services for the purposes of grant of pensionary benefits is that of Bhubaneshwar Mahto Vrs. State of Jharkhand ( W.P.S. No. 4751 of 2003) decided by the learned Single Judge on 21.11.2003. Material facts borne out from the judgment of the learned Single Judge show that Bhubaneshwar Mahto was appointed on 10.12.1968 as a Peon of the State Library and retired on 31.7.2001 under the Mass Education Department of State. The Respondents contested the plea by stating that Mass Education Department had been closed since 15.5.2001 and the petitioner could not be entitled for salary for the subsequent period. Learned Single Judge held that the Respondents did not dispute that he was regular employee of the State. He was working since 1968 and is entitled to pension, gratuity, leave encashment, etc in accordance with law. It was further held that even if the scheme was closed since 15.5.2001 but the employee was not retrenched, since there was no latches on the part of the employee, Respondent cannot deny him salary. Accordingly the Respondents were directed to pay salary for the period 16.5.2001 to 31.7.2001 (i.e. the date of retirement with all admitted retirement benefits counting the aforesaid period) such as full pension, gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund etc within the stipulated period, failing which, they were made liable to pay interest and cost. 11. It is apparent from the bare facts noted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that petitioner, Bhubaneshwar Mahto was treated as regular employee of the State having been appointed on 10.12.1968, much before the Adult Education / Nonformal Education Project started in the year 1978. Therefore, it was held that he would be entitled not only to the salary up to his date of retirement on 31.7.2001 but all other post retirement benefits. L.P.A. No. 515 of 2004 preferred by the aggrieved State of Jharkhand was dismissed on the ground of delay vide order dated 27.4.2005. The S.L.P(CC No. 8793 of 2005) preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the judgment passed in L.P.A. was also dismissed in limine after condonation of delay vide order dated 30.9.2005 finding no merits.

¶477

The case next in the chronology is that of Nirmala Kumari Vrs. State of Jharkhand, W.P.S. No. 460 of 2008 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 1.5.2009. Petitioner Nirmala Kumari also was initially appointed on the post of Adult Education Supervisor and reached the age of superannuation on 31.7.2004. She had also approached this Court for payment of retirement benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. claiming herself to be in continuous service till the date of her retirement. The learned Single Judge found that the Respondents had not disputed the fact that petitioner was regular employee of the State. It was accordingly held that though the project launched by the Directorate of Mass Education was closed on 15.5.2001, since the employees were not retrenched, Respondents cannot deny salary and retirement benefit legitimately earned. In those circumstances, direction was issued for payment of arrears of salary and the entire retirement benefit including pension with interest within stipulated period. It is evident from the instant judgment also that employee Nirmala Kumari was appointed as Adult Education Supervisor in the year 1980 and had been rendered surplus after closure of the scheme w.e.f. 15.5.2001. She was held entitled to the arrears of salary after closure of the scheme and retirement benefit also. The judgment of learned Division Bench in the case of Bimal Kumar Sinha (supra) dated 20.3.2008 that benefit of past service would not be counted for the period spent under the Adult Education Programme scheme for the purposes of pensionary benefits was once again not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. L.P.A No. 130 of 2010 preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was dismissed on 13.8.2010 as being time barred on account of huge delay of 287 days. The S.L.P (C.C.) No. 3780 of 2011 preferred by the aggrieved State of Jharkhand against the judgment rendered in L.P.A.

¶480

W.P.S. No. 2774 of 2004 preferred by Zahid Hussain & others seeking salary w.e.f. 16.5.2001 is next in the chronology which was decided by judgment dated 26.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment in the case of Bhubaneshwar Mahto. Learned Single Judge recorded the admitted facts that petitioners were initially appointed as Adult Education Supervisor under the Adult Education Project, which was closed w.e.f. 16.5.2001. Subsequently pursuant to the State Government's decision to absorb such surplus employees of the Non-formal Education Project in various departments, petitioners had been absorbed in service. Respondents were accordingly directed to pay the salary to these petitioners for the period 16.5.2001 till the date of their absorption within a stipulated time. No prayer for payment of post retirement benefits by counting their service under the Adult Education Scheme was made nor was any direction issued to that effect. L.P.A. No. 435 of 2010 preferred by the aggrieved State of Jharkhand was dismissed by referring to the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 555 of 2004 in the case of Bhubaneshwar Mahto, L.P.A. No. 359 of 2009 in the case of Ila Sinha, L.P.A. No. 130 of 2010 in the case of Nirmala Kumari as of similarly situated employees who were found entitled to their salary for the said period. The S.L.P.(CC) No. 19981 of 2011 preferred by the aggrieved State of Jharkhand was dismissed in limine vide judgment dated 16.12.2011. Apparently the claim of past services under the Adult Education Project for pensionary benefits was neither made nor granted. The State of Jharkhand preferred a Review Petition (Civil) no. 2120 of 2012 , which was, however also rejected by order dated 30.10.2012 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court finding no merits. 17. In the case of Asgar Ali & others Vrs. State of Jharkhand (W.P.S. No. 729 of 2004) petitioners sought payment of salary from 16.5.2001 till January, 2008 i.e. before their absorption in February 2008. This was also disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 4.1.2010 directing payment of salary for the period with interest relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Bhubaneshwar Mahto . It is evident there from that no claim for counting of past service under the Adult Education Project for the purpose of pensionary benefits were raised or decided in the instant writ petition. The L.P.A No. 533 of 2012 preferred by the aggrieved State of Jharkhand was dismissed on 1.10.2013. The judgment passed in the case of Ila Sinha (supra) was also relied upon by the writ petitioners before the learned Division Bench in support of their case. The fact that they were employees under Non-formal Education Project sponsored by the Central Government and that the said project had been closed, was also recorded by the learned Division Bench. The State of Jharkhand however went in S.L.P.(CC) No. 10361-10364 of 2014 being aggrieved by the order

¶496

“39. We have catalogued and dealt with all the available decisions of this Court brought to our notice on the point at issue. It is clear that as amongst the several two-Judge Bench decisions there is a conflict of opinion and needs to be set at rest. The source of power conferring binding efficacy on decisions of this Court is not uniform in all such decisions. Reference is found having been made to (i) Article 141 of the Constitution, (ii) doctrine of merger, (iii) res judicata, and (iv) rule of discipline flowing from this Court being the highest court of the land. 40. A petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal may be rejected for several reasons. For example, it may be rejected (i) as barred by time, or (ii) being a defective presentation, (iii) the petitioner having no locus standi to file the petition, (iv) the conduct of the petitioner disentitling him to any indulgence by the court, (iv) the question raised by the petitioner for consideration by this Court being not fit for consideration or deserving being dealt with by the Apex Court of the country and so on. The expression often employed by this Court while disposing of such petitions are — “heard and dismissed”, “dismissed”, “dismissed as barred by time” and so on. May be that at the admission stage itself the opposite party appears on caveat or on notice and offers contest to the maintainability of the petition. The Court may apply its mind to the merit worthiness of the petitioner’s prayer seeking leave to file an appeal and having formed an opinion may say “dismissed on merits”. Such an order may be passed even ex parte, that is, in the absence of the opposite party. In any case, the dismissal would remain a dismissal by a non-speaking order where no reasons have been assigned and no law has been declared by the Supreme Court. The dismissal is not of the appeal but of the special leave petition. Even if the merits have been gone into, they are the merits of the special leave petition only. In our opinion neither doctrine of merger nor Article 141 of the Constitution is attracted to such an order. Grounds entitling exercise of review jurisdiction conferred by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or any other statutory provision or allowing review of an order passed in exercise of writ or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court (where also the principles underlying or emerging from Order 47 Rule 1 CPC act as guidelines) are not necessarily the same on which this Court exercises discretion to grant or not to grant special leave to appeal while disposing of a petition for the purpose. Mere rejection of a special leave petition does not take away the jurisdiction of the court, tribunal or forum whose order forms the subject-matter of petition for special leave

¶515

rejecting prayer for the grant of leave to appeal. Petitioner has been turned away at the threshold without having been allowed to enter in the appellate jurisdiction of the Apex Court. Here also the Doctrine of Merger would not apply. But the law stated or declaration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order shall attract applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution. The reasons assigned by the Apex court in its order expressing its adjudication (expressly or by necessary implication) on the point of fact or law shall take away jurisdiction of any other Court, Tribunal or Authority to express any opinion in conflict with or departure from the view taken by the Apex Court because permitting to do so would be subversive of judicial discipline. However, this should not be so by reference to the Doctrine of Merger. Once the S.L.P is granted, the order impugned before the Supreme Court becomes an order appealed against. Any order passed thereafter would be an appellate order and would attract the applicability of Doctrine of Merger. It would also not make any difference if the order is speaking or non-speaking one. As has been further elucidated in the passage quoted above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot and does not reverse or modify the decree/ order appealed against while deciding the petition of Special Leave. 25. In all the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners starting from Special Leave to Appeal (CC) No.8793 of 2005 in the case of Bhubaneshwar Mahto ; Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1377 of 2011 in the case of Ila Sinha ; Special Leave to Appeal(CC. No 3780 of 2011) in the case of Nirmala Kumari ; Special Leave to Appeal (CC 19981 of 2011) in the case of Zahid Hussain & others , Special Leave Petitions preferred by the aggrieved State of Jharkhand were dismissed in limine by a non-speaking order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Ila Sinha, in fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1377 of 2011 vide judgment dated 2.10.2013 left the question of law open. It can therefore be safely said that the issue involved in the present reference is not one which has been rendered final on adjudication in any of these matters by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The question therefore posed before this larger Bench is res integra and open for consideration i.e. whether the past services of such employees under the Adult Education cum Non-formal Education Scheme can be counted for the purpose of their seniority and pensionary benefits? and; whether the opinion of the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 188 of 2004, State of Jharkhand vs. Bimal Kumar Sinha or the decisions relied upon by the petitioner in the other line of cases such as Bhubneshwar Mahto, Ila Sinha, Zahid Hussain & others being L.P.A. No. 515 of 2004 , L.P.A. No. 359 of 2009 and L.P.A No.435 of 2010 respectively, is the correct view? It is relevant to mention here that the case of Bhubneshwar Mahto is distinguishable on facts as already discussed in the earlier paragraphs. Bhubneshwar Mahto was treated as regular employee of the State Government having been appointed

¶528

“These appeals and the writ petition raised a common question as to whether the services rendered as an Adult Education Supervisor under a Non-formal Education Scheme evolved by the State of Haryana can be counted for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits as well as for the purpose of fixation of his pay, when such an employee is recruited to a regular post under the State Government either with or without break of service. Needless to mention that these appellants after having served for a number of years under the Rural Education Literacy Project/State Adult Education Programme the Scheme itself under which they had been discharging their duties stood abolished, and consequently the appellants ceased to be employees. They had approached this Court in a writ petition, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1040 of 1990 seeking a mandamus to the State Government for their absorption in any regular cadre of the State Government. In the said case, the counsel appearing for the State of Haryana fairly stated that the Government is prepared to absorb the applicants in the State’s service as and when vacancies in the cadre of Social Studies Teachers and Masters are available, and on the basis of the said statement made by the counsel appearing for the State of Haryana the writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the Government should utilize the past experience of these persons by absorbing them suitably as and when vacancies would occur in the post, as already stated. Pursuant to the said direction of this Court, the appellants were recruited to the post of Teachers on different dates in the year 1993, and they were taken in as fresh recruits. Their salary having been fixed at the initial stage of the scale of pay for the post in question, the appellants, therefore, approached the High Court seeking relief that their pay in the scale of pay should be fixed up taking the past services into account, and that their past services rendered under the Scheme should also be taken into account for the purpose of deciding their pension. The High Court relying upon the circular issued by the Government on 13-11-1995 came to the conclusion that no part of the services rendered by the appellants as Supervisors in the Adult Education Scheme can be considered either for the purpose of determining the initial amount of salary which they would get on their regular absorption nor can the same be taken into account for deciding the pensionary benefits, ultimately, which the appellants would receive on superannuation from the regular services. It is this judgment of the High Court, which is the subject-matter of challenge in these appeals. Mr Pankaj Kalra, appearing for the appellants strenuously contended that by judgment of this Court the appellants having been given the regular pay scale while continuing as Adult Education Supervisors under the Scheme on the basis that they were discharging full-time duties, there is no rationale to deny the relief sought for by the appellants in the writ petition. Mr Kalra also contended that the High Court was totally in error by coming to the conclusion that the appellants had rendered service as part-time Supervisors, which is belied by the earlier decision of this Court. He further contended that since under the government rules and regulations the temporary employees, the ad hoc employees and the work-charged employees are entitled to count their services for the purposes of getting the pensionary benefits, it would not be fair to discriminate against this particular group of employees, though undoubtedly, they had served the period under a particular scheme. Having considered the two contentions made, and having applied our mind to the rules and regulations that were shown to us, we are not in a position to accept either of the contentions raised by Mr Kalra. The continuance/engagement of the appellants under the specific scheme cannot be held to be an employment under any establishment of the Government. Such schemes are taken up for certain contingencies when

¶584

of 2009, 435 of 2010 relied upon by the petitioners had not taken into account the statutory provisions under the Jharkhand Pension. These decisions cannot be treated as precedents. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ila Siha has while dismissing the S.L.P. in limine also left the question of law open. Therefore this issue is open for this Court to decide in the present reference. Payments made to one or the other employees such as Ila Sinha, Niramala Kumari, Sita Ram, Zahid Hussain etc. having been made in teeth of the statutory provisions, would not clothe the petitioners with a legal right to claim such benefits, as it would amount to perpetuating an illegality. This Court therefore should uphold the law and declare that petitioners cannot claim the benefits of past services rendered under Adult education cum Non-formal Education scheme for the purpose of their pensionary benefits after their fresh appointment / absorption under the Government of Jharkhand. He has also pointed out that abolition of Non-formal Education scheme is not covered under Rule 103(d) as is apparent from the reading of the provisions of rule 71 read with rule 108 of the Pension Rules. Apart from that, conditions required for qualifying service under Rule 58 have also not been considered by the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in the case of Baliram Singh & others (supra) relied by the petitioners. Even otherwise the decision of the Government of Bihar to count past services of such surplus employees cannot have a binding effect on the State of Jharkhand, it being a Sovereign entity in itself. Petitioners' case have to stand on their own legs. Mr. Srivastava however submits that the case of Ila Sinha, Nirmala Kumari, Zahid Hussain, etc. wherein the respective S.L.Ps have been dismissed in limine , cannot be opened now as the case of such persons have become final. However, this Court may upon declaration of the law make it applicable to the case of all other persons including the petitioners as well. It is also submitted that huge financial consequences would otherwise entail upon the State Government without the sanction of law. Moreover, the declaration of law made by this Court upholding the view taken by the learned Division Bench in the case of Bimal Kumar Sinha would have far reaching consequences in respect of other persons / employees also who have worked under any such scheme / project, sponsored by the Central and / or the State Government where their past services cannot be counted as regular service under the permanent establishment for pensionary benefits also.

¶591

Such programme was approved for 5 years by the Planning Commission and grant-inaid was released to the State Government on yearly basis by the Ministry with approval of the integrated financial division. Some projects were fully financed by the Central Government, while for some project, the State Government had borne the liability. Later on in 1987-88, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education revised the scheme leading to abolition of 771 posts of Adult Education Supervisors after adjusting them suitably to different posts as per memo dated 19.12.1990. Remaining 361 supervisors continued to work until abolition of the posts in 1991. In the year 1990-91 the Government of India sent revised scheme to the State Government. As per the staffing pattern under this scheme in place of Project Officer a post of Co-ordinator at a honorarium of Rs.1800/per month was created. Since the posts of Supervisors were already abolished, therefore, in their places ' Prerak' were to be engaged on honorarium basis @ Rs. 400/per month. It is in this background, Learned Division Bench after a detailed discussion went on to hold that petitioners’ initial appointment made under the scheme was purely temporary, therefore it may not be possible to ask the Respondent Authorities to regularize their services. The learned Division Bench did not consider it proper to quash the order of their termination. However, having regard to the long service rendered by them and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, 3 fold directions were issued which have been referred to in the foregoing paragraphs. The notification dated 15.3.1998 itself shows that it was issued in compliance of the directions by the learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court. The persons named therein were appointed on a sanctioned vacant post in a prescribed scale of pay of Project Officers in the Non-formal Education under the Directorate of Mass Education with a clear stipulation that it would be treated as new appointment and their past services would not be counted for the purpose of pension, promotion, time bound promotion etc. The notification clearly stipulated at clause 6 that services of all such employees would be governed under the principles and policies of the nonformal education / adult education project. The stipulation contained therein, in unequivocal terms therefore made it clear that these appointments were in respect of the non-formal education/ adult education programme conducted under the Directorate of Mass Education. This centrally sponsored Non-formal Education programme was abolished w.e.f 1.4.2001, which is evident from letter of the Secretary cum Commissioner, Secondary, Primary, Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar to the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand through letter dated 2.2.2001(Annexure-4 enclosed to the writ petition, W.P.C. No. 4110 of 2013). It clearly stated that pursuant to the decision of the Central Government , employees working under 500 Non-formal Education Project, 37 Assistant Director, employees and staffs engaged under Non-

¶612

“21. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on the basis of the GO, a number of persons are granted pensionary benefits even though they have not completed 20 years of service, and, therefore, at this stage, the Court should not interfere and see that the pensionary benefits granted to the respondents are not disturbed and are released as early as possible. In our view, for grant of pension the members of BSF are governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules. The CCS (Pension) Rules nowhere provide that a person who has resigned before completing 20 years of service as provided in Rule 48-A is entitled to pensionary benefits. Rule 19 of the BSF Rules also does not make any provision for grant of pensionary benefits. It only provides that if a member of the Force who resigns and to whom permission in writing is granted to resign then the authority granting such permission may reduce the pensionary benefits if he is eligible to get the pension. Therefore, by erroneous interpretation of the Rules if pensionary benefits are granted to someone it would not mean that the said mistake should be perpetuated by direction of the Court. It would be unjustifiable to submit that by appropriate writ, the Court should direct something which is contrary to the statutory rules. In such cases, there is no question of application of Article 14 of the Constitution. No person can claim any right on the basis of decision which is dehors the statutory rules nor can there be any estoppel. Further, in such cases there cannot be any consideration on the ground of hardship. If the Rules are not providing for grant of pensionary benefits it is for the authority to decide and frame appropriate rules but the Court cannot direct payment of pension on the ground of so-called hardship likely to be caused to a person who has resigned without completing qualifying service for getting pensionary benefits. As a normal rule, pensionary benefits are granted to a government servant who is required to retire on his attaining the age of compulsory retirement except in those cases where there are special provisions”.

Rajeshwar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panchu Goswami And Anr. Vs State

Hariher Bhuian And Anr. Vs State of Bihar

Abhimanyu Goswami Vs State of Bihar

Balmukund Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary

Rajeshwar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panchu Goswami And Anr. Vs State

Hariher Bhuian And Anr. Vs State of Bihar

Abhimanyu Goswami Vs State of Bihar

Balmukund Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Bhagwati Dhiwar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Most.Kiran Kunwar Kiran Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.