Disposed

Anil Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Mar 2021WPC/526/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted a writ petition seeking to enhance the petitioner's age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years. The court directed authorities to verify if the petitioner's case was similar to a previous order (W.P.(S) No.5320 of 2017) and, if so, extend the retirement age benefit within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Director respondents to verify similarity with W.P.(S) No.5320 of 2017 and grant retirement age enhancement within 12 weeks if applicable, or communicate reasons for rejection within 2 weeks.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.526 of 2021

¶3

Anil Kumar Singh, aged about 60 years, son of late Shiv Lok Singh, residing at Kokar Chuna Bhata, Post Kokar, Police Station Sadar, District Ranchi … … Petitioner

¶4

V E R S U S

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Animal husbandry and Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, officiating from Nepal House, Post Doranda, Police Station Doranda, District-Ranchi

¶7

The Secretary, Department of Planning cum Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, officiating from Project Bhawan, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

¶8

The Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, officiating from Nepal House, Post Doranda, Police Station, Doranda, District Ranchi

¶9

The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, officiating from Project Bhawan, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

¶10

… ... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

For Petitioners : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ashish Shekhar, Advocate

¶13

02/10.03.2021 Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Shekhar, the learned counsel for the respondent State.

¶14

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioner, who belong to Jharkhand Animal Husbandry Service Cadre from 60 to 65 years, in the light of the decision of the State of Jharkhand, dated 23.07.2011 issued by the Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. Further prayer has been made to consider the case of the petitioner, Veterinary Officer (Doctor) at par with the General Duty Medical Officers (Allopathic Doctors), when the respondent-Government has enhanced their age of retirement from 60 to 65 years, the petitioner is also entitled for such benefit.

¶16

The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioner was appointed in the cadre of the unified Bihar Animal Husbandry Service in the year 1989 and at the time of

¶17

¶18

appointment of the petitioner, the age of retirement of Government Servants in the State of Bihar was 58 years. The age of retirement of Officers of Health Service Cadre (Allopathic) and the officers working thereunder was also 58 years. Similarly, the age of retirement of Dentist and Dental Education Cadre was also the same. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand. In the year, 2004, the State of Jharkhand enhanced the retirement age of Government Servants from 58 to 60 years. Later on, the State of Bihar also enhanced the retirement age of Government Servants from 58 to 60 years. There was no difference in the age of retirement of the cadre of the petitioner and the officers of Health Services Cadre (Allopathic/Dentists).

¶19

It is case of the petitioner that the age of retirement of doctors of Allopathy in the State of Jharkhand has been enhanced by a decision taken by the State Govt. whereby the age of retirement of Doctors of Allopathy has been enhanced from 60 to 65 years vide Resolution No. 7 (A) Stha. 8-05/2008 283 (7A) dated 23.07.2011 read with Corrigendum as contained in Memo No.9/Chi.Maha-7-24-2012-79 (ii) dated 23.06.2012. Pursuant to the said Resolution, the petitioner expected that the Government would take a similar decision in respect of the case of the petitioner too, but to his utter surprise, he was not treated at par with that of Medical Officers (Allopathic) regarding enhancement of age of retirement ignoring the fact that the State has given equal status to the doctors of both cadres. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has represented before the respondents to consider his case for enhancement of age of retirement from 60 to 65 years, but no heed was paid on such representation. Hence, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances.

¶20

Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the action of the respondent-authorities in not extending the benefits of enhanced age of retirement at par with Health Service Cadre (Allopathic), Dentist and Health Education Cadre in view of the Resolution dated 23.07.2011 is arbitrary, illegal and in colourable exercise of power. When the retirement age of the petitioner has been at par with that of Medical Officers and Dentists since beginning, the respondents have no unbridled power and jurisdiction to enhance the age of retirement of their counter-part from 60 to 65 years and not to do so in the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that when the minimum educational qualification, as also the mode of recruitment are one and the same of the cadre of the petitioner and that of Health Service Cadre (Allopathic and Dentist), the petitioner are also entitled for the benefit of enhancement of age from 60 to 65 years for retirement. There is no reason at all in the facts and circumstances of the present case that veterinarians are different from other classes of Medical and Dental practitioners for the purpose of denying the enhancement of their age of retirement, as the

¶21

¶22

petitioner is treated at par with other those categories in the matter of pay scales, allowances etc. The petitioner and Doctors of Allopathic as also the Dentists are all registered Doctors and the nature of work and duties are same. Veterinarians cannot be classified differently from other doctors. There cannot be any discrimination amongst the same class of employees. Learned counsel lastly argues that the issue involved in this writ petition is now no more res integra and this writ application is squarely covered by the order passed on 09.08.2018 by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S).No.5320 of 2017. Learned counsel further submits that this case may be disposed of in terms of orders passed in the aforesaid cases.

¶23

Per contra, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that issues involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S).No.5320 of 2017 vide order dated 09.08.2018 and if the case of the petitioner is found same and similar to the cases of the petitioners in W.P.(S).No.5320 of 2017, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits.

¶24

In view of the fair submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(S).No.5320 of 2017 and if the case of the present petitioner is found same and similar to the cases of the petitioners in W.P.(S).No.5320 of 2017, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits.

¶25

Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to verify the factual aspects/ issues involved in the present writ petition vis-à-vis factual aspects/ issues involved in W.P.(S).No.5320 of 2017 and if the facts/ issues involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petition, the same benefits may be extended to the present writ petitioner also, in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner’s case is turned down for one or other reasons, same shall be communicated to the petitioner, within a further period of two weeks.

¶26

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition [W.P.(S) No.526 of 2021] stands disposed of.

¶27

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi,J.)

¶28

SI/

Anil Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Vikash Chandra Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs Union Of India Through Director General Central Reserve Police Force And Ors.

Biswajit Gorai Vs Health

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Secretary Education and Human Resources

Bhima Vs the Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Rajesh Hadi Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority Represented through Its Managing Director