Dismissed

Safiruddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC4 Apr 2018LPA/138/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by an appellant claiming belated promotion granted in 1995. The court held that the appeal failed due to gross unexplained delay in filing the original writ petition, superannuation, and lack of departmental exam clearance.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed and the original judgment dated 17th February, 2017 was upheld.

Safiruddin Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

L.P.A. No. 138 of 2017

¶3

Safiruddin Ansari son of Late Sk. Mati, resident of Bhathi Toli, Simdega, P.O. and P.S. Simdega, District Simdega

¶4

… … Appellant

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1. State of Jharkhand

¶7

2. Secretary, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi

¶8

3. Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi

¶9

4. District Superintendent of Education, Simdega, P.O. P.S. & District Simdega

¶10

5. State of Bihar

¶11

6. Secretary, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, P.O. G.P.O. P.S. Sadar, District Patna

¶12

7. Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Sadar, District Patna

¶13

… … Respondents

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶15

For the Petitioners: M/s Afaque Ahmad For the Respondents: Mr. Ramit Satendra (For R. No.5, 6 and 7) State of Bihar

¶16

: Mr. Amit Kr. Verma (For R.No.1-4)

¶17

07/Dated 4th April, 2018 Per D.N. Patel, A.C.J.

¶18

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, whose writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 2074 of 2008 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 17^th February, 2017, whereby the claim of this appellant (original petitioner) to get promotion, which became due in the year 1995, was rejected.

¶19

2. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that it is the highest case of the this appellant that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1965 in the basic school. Thereafter, in the year 1987 he was placed in Subordinate Education Grade. He became entitled to promotion in the year 1995 and the writ petition has been preferred in the year 2008, viz. at a much belated stage and there is no explanation for the delay in filing the same.

¶20

-2-

¶21

3. It appears from the facts of the case that one promotion list was also published in the year 2001( at Annexure 5 to the memo of this appeal). The name of this appellant was not incorporated in this said list. Nonetheless, writ petition was preferred in the year 2008. Thus, even from the year 2001 there is a gross unexplained delay in filing the writ petition by the appellant.

¶22

4. It further appears from the facts of the case that this appellant reached the age of superannuation on 31^st August, 1999 and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2008. Here also, gross unexplained delay can be seen.

¶23

5. Counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the decision in Dr. Paras Nath Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in (1999) 2 PLJR 248 .

¶24

This judgment is not helpful to this appellant mainly for the reason that in the facts of the present case, there is a gross unexplained delay in filing the writ petition, i.e. promotion was due in the year 1995 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2008.

¶25

Secondly, this appellant superannuated on 31^st August, 1999 and the writ petition was preferred in the year 2008

¶26

There is another reason, viz. Non-clearance of departmental examination by the appellant.

¶27

6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, it appears that there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal as the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in deciding the W.P.(S) No. 2074 of 2008 vide judgment dated 17^th February, 2017 and we are not inclined to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge.

¶28

7. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.

¶29

(D.N.Patel, A.C.J.)

¶30

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶31

s.m.

Safiruddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safiruddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sita Ram Vs State of Jhakrhand and Anr.

Patel Filters Infrastructure through Its Partner Akshay Ramesh Bhai Patel Vs State of Jharkhand

Madhubala Devi and Anr. Vs Employers in Relation to the Management of the Punjab National Bank Reprr through Its Chief Manager

Thakur Das Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Shyam Sundar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand through Circle Officer and Anr.

Ms Globe Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. through One of Its Director Sunil Bansal Vs the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Thorugh Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.