Allowed

Ram Kishore Thakur v. Human Resource Development

Jharkhand HC19 Aug 2019WPC/5062/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a termination order passed by the State of Jharkhand, arguing inconsistent grounds for termination and lack of hearing. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing the Regional Deputy Director of Education to pass a reasoned order. (46 words)§[END_SUMMARY_PLACEHOLDER]

What did the court decide?

Order dated 11.7.2013 quashed; respondent no.3 directed to consider petitioner's case and pass a reasoned order within six weeks.

Ram Kishore Thakur Vs Human Resource… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No.5062 OF 2013

Ram Kishore Thakur

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, HRDD,Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶7

2.The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O,P.S Dist. Sahibganj, Jharkhand

¶8

3.The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Dumka P.O P.S and District Dumka, Jharkhand

¶9

4.The District Education Officer,Sahibganj, P.O.P.S and Dist. Sahibganj, Jharkhand.

¶10

….. Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

For the Petitioner : Miss Khalida Haya Rashmi . Adv. For the State Mrs.Shweta Singh A.C to S.C(l&C)II

¶13

Order No.8 : Dated 19th August, 2019

¶14

Heard Miss Khalida Haya Rashmi learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Shweta Singh A.C to S.C(l&C)III for the State.

¶15

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 11.7.2013. A further prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to reinstate him in the service.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon on temporary basis by the District Education Officer,Sahibganj by order dated 6.2.1989 and the petitioner was posted under the Block Education Extension Officer, Hiranpur. The said appointment letter is annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition. Pursuant to that, the petitioner joined on 1.3.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Hiranppur to Pakudia under Block Educational Extension Officer, Pakudia vide order dated 30.3. 1989 and subsequently, two transfer orders were passed and the petitioner was placed at different place by way of those orders. She further submits that on 27.12.1990 District Education Officer recommended for confirmation of the service of the petitioner and vide order dated 12.2.1991, the service of the petitioner has been terminated and against that, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C No. 2985 of 1992 before the Patna

¶17

-2-

¶18

High Court which was allowed with a direction to the respondents to provide opportunity of hearing and after that to pass a fresh order and thereafter the impugned order has been passed wherein the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner preferred this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that on the past occasion when the termination order was issued the ground of mis-conduct in discipline has been taken and now the impugned order has been passed on the ground that the petitioner was appointed without following the due process of law. She submits that Respondents-State cannot be allowed to take different grounds while passing the impugned order. She submits that without providing any opportunity of hearing and proceeding, the petitioner has been terminated. She submits that similarly situated persons earlier moved before this court in C.W.J.C No. 1752 of 2001 and the same was allowed with direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and thereafter it was challenged in L.P.A No. 307 of 2003 which was disposed of with certain modification in the order of the learned Single Judge and the order of the L.P.A was traveled up to Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No. 18356 of 2005 which was dismissed.

¶19

Mrs.Shweta Singh A.C to S.C (l&C)II submits that the petitioner was not appointed on the basis of any advertisement that is why the authorities concerned have passed the impugned order. She further submits that on demand, the petitioner has not been able to produce any documentary evidence and that is why the impugned order has been passed

¶20

After looking into the submissions and records of the case, this court finds that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference with the writ petition. The authorities concerned have passed two orders and in both orders they have taken different grounds for termination of the petitioner which cannot be allowed when the order is being passed by a model employer. Accordingly, the order dated 11.7.2013 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. Respondent no.3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in view of taking into account in the order passed in C.W.J.C No. 1752 of 2001 ,

¶21

-3-

¶22

L.P.A No. 307 of 2003 and W.P(S) No. 1605 of 2009.

¶23

This court expects that the respondent no. 3 will pass reasoned order in this regard as early as possible within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order .

¶24

With the aforesaid observation this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶26

Ram Kishore Thakur v. Human Resource Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishore Thakur v. Human Resource Development

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

Moti Gope And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Uma Nath Mehta Vs C.M.D.,Mineral Area Developmen

Ram Pravesh Tiwary Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Suchand Singh Sardar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Narayan Prasad Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Bhushan Chandra Karmkar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.