Remanded

Abdul Hakim v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC11 Jul 2019WPC/3217/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed an order rejecting a teacher's salary claim on the basis that the minority school status was unrecognized. The matter was remitted to the Director for fresh consideration since the petitioner submitted supporting documents at a later stage.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25.02.2010 quashed; matter remitted to Director for fresh decision after opportunity of hearing.

Abdul Hakim Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

Page 1 of 3 W.P.(S) No. 3217 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S.) No. 3217 of 2010

¶4

Abdul Hakim son of Irshad Ali, Resident of Village-Goya, Post Office-Belgarha, PS-Ghagra District-Gumla, Jharkhand.

¶5

… ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Primary Education, Human Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶8

The Director, Primary Education, Human Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶9

The District Superintendent of Education, Gumla PO & PS Gumla, District-Gumla, Jhakhand.

¶10

.… … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶13

-------For the Petitioner : Mr. K. K. Ambastha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate --------

¶14

Order No. 13: Dated: 11^th July, 2019

¶15

Per Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.:

¶16

Heard Mr. K.K. Ambastha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 25.02.2010 whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for payment of salary.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appointed as untrained teacher for the school namely Urdu Madhya Vidyalaya, Goya. It is further submitted that school in question is minority school. Pursuant to that the salary of the petitioner was paid to the petitioner till August 2002 thereafter the salary of the petitioner has been stopped. Earlier the petitioner along with other three teachers filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1060 of 2009 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.05.2009 (copy of order annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition) with a

¶18

Page 2 of 3 W.P.(S) No. 3217 of 2010

¶19

direction to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and decide the claim of the petitioner within 16 weeks’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶20

Pursuant to that order, the Directorate of Primary Education has passed the order and it appears from the order of director that the petitioner did not appear before the director. The Director after taking into account the several documents came to the conclusion that the school in-question is not recognized as minority school and the appointment of petitioner was illegal. Considering this he has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by way of rejoinder to the counteraffidavit, the petitioner has filed documents to show that the school in question has been recognized as minority school and the certificate to that effect has also been annexed with the rejoinder to the counter affidavit.

¶21

On the other hand, Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the authority concerned after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter has passed the reasoned order and as such the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Ambastha, relied in the case of Sudarshan Sharma vs. the State of Jharkhand reported in 2003 (1) JCR 583 (Jhr) submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered under the aforesaid judgment. This Court after taking into account all the aspects passed the order in W.P. (S) No. 1060 of 2009 in spite of the order of this Court the petitioner did not appear before the authorities for hearing and that is why the order has been passed without hearing the petitioner.

¶22

Be that it may, the petitioner has brought certain documents by way of rejoinder to the counter-affidavit that the school in question has been recognized as minority school he has stated in paragraph 5 to the rejoinder that the proposal of fixation of the

¶23

Page 3 of 3 W.P.(S) No. 3217 of 2010

¶24

salary of the petitioner has been sent to the concerned department as such the impugned order dated 25.02.2010 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Director, Primary Education who in turn pass the appropriate order taking into account the documents which is brought by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing rejoinder. Particularly, taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in the case of Sudarshan Sharma (supra ). The petitioner is directed to appear before the authority by filing a fresh representation along with the documents to which he relied in this case. He will do so within four weeks from the date of this order and the Director, Primary Education shall take decision after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within eight weeks’ thereafter. It is made clear, if the petitioner will not cooperate in hearing in terms of the date fixed by the Director, Primary Education, the Director may proceed ex-parte.

¶25

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶27

The Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 11/07/2019 MM /AFR/NAFR

Abdul Hakim v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hakim 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

Anil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Dinesh Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Sobha Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand and Other

Ram Jas Singh Vs Steel Authority of India Limited

Man Mohan Jha Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Chitranjan Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.