Allowed

Ramjagi Singh Ramjangi Singh v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC17 Jun 2022WPC/1848/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed orders denying salary to a Paid Manager of a liquidated cooperative bank. Holding that salary is a distinct right from performance-based incentives under Order No. 503 of 1989, the court directed the successor bank to process the arrears claim after deducting the already paid amount.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned orders and directed the petitioner to file a claim before the successor bank (Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Limited) for the balance salary after deducting previously paid_amou

Ramjagi Singh Ramjangi Singh Vs State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 1848 of 2012

¶3

Ramjagi Singh @ Ramjangi Singh, Son of Late Nagbaran Singh, Resident of Mohalla Azad Nagar, Sudna, P.O.: Sudna, P.S.: Daltonganj, District: Palamau. … … Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau/Liquidator, Daltonganj Central Cooperative Bank, P.O. & P.S.: Daltonganj, District Palamau.

¶6

The District Co-operative Officer (The Assistant Liquidator-cumPrincipal Secretary), Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S.: Daltonganj, District Palamau.

¶7

The Member Secretary, Cadre Cooperative Society, P.O. & P.S.: Daltonganj, District-: Palamau.

¶8

The Block Cooperative Officer, Bishrampur, P.O. & P.S.: Bishrampur, District : Palamau.

¶9

The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand Ranchi. AtDhurwa PO- Dhurwa PS- Jaganathpur, Dist- Ranchi.

¶10

… … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6: Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate ---

¶15

29 /17.06.2022 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶16

2. Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6.

¶17

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶18

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s), in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the Reasoned Order, passed by Registrar, Cooperative Society, Jharkhand, Ranchi, issued vide Memo No. 1106 dated 10.05.2011 (Annexure- 13) and also the consequential Letter No. 40 dated 15.04.2011, issued by The District Cooperative Officer, Palamau-cumPrincipal Secretary (Annexure- 13/1), whereby & whereunder it has erroneously been held that the post of Paid Manager, in the District Cooperative Banks is based upon the work performance and as the work performance of the petitioner since 1989 till the date of his retirement is zero therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any salary for the aforesaid period: (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s), in the nature of Mandamus,

¶19

¶20

commanding upon & directing the respondents to pay his arrears of salary, which has not been paid to the petitioner since February, 1989 to the Date of his retirement i.e. June, 2008, after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,19,573/- which has been paid to the petitioner in lieu of his salary.

¶21

(iii) Petitioner further prays for payment of his retiral dues which has not been paid to the petitioner, despite the fact that the petitioner has retired from the service in January, 2008 and till date neither the Gratuity nor Leave Encashment, Group Insurance and the Provident Fund amount has been paid to the petitioner:

¶22

And/Or

¶23

Further, for issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) to which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts & circumstances of the case.”

¶24

Arguments of the Petitioner

¶25

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders as contained in Annexure- 13 and 13/1 have been passed pursuant to order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) Nos. 5491 of 2008 dated 04.01.2011. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had been working as paid manager and certain payments were also made to the petitioner during the pendency of the earlier round of writ application. The earlier writ petition was subsequently disposed of enabling the Registrar, Cooperative Society to pass a reasoned order upon a representation. The learned counsel submits that the reasoned order has been passed, but it has been held that the petitioner is not the government employee. It has also been held in the impugned order that the procedure for payment of salary has been outlined and is based on the work performance by virtue of order no. 503 dated 31.05.1989 issued by the Department of Cooperative Societies, Government of Bihar. As per the impugned order there was neither any financing nor any recovery of the short-term cooperative loan for the period, so on account of zero performance, from the side of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to any payment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the impugned order to submit that it has also been mentioned in the impugned order that the concerned bank i.e District Cooperative Bank, Palamau, Daltonganj is under liquidation.

¶26

¶27

5. The learned counsel has referred to the order as contained in Annexure- 10 which is dated 31.05.1989 to submit that the scheme of payment has been mentioned therein and the same consists of two parts; one is salary and the other is incentive. He submits that the impugned order only talks about the incentive part and so far as the salary is concerned, it is totally silent. The learned counsel submits that if no work was done by the petitioner, the petitioner may not be entitled to incentive, but so far as the salary is concerned, it was for the cooperative department to make payment of the salary. The learned counsel submits that the appointment letter of the petitioner was issued by the District Cooperative Officer, Daltonganj, Palamau and accordingly, the State Government is liable to make payment of salary to the petitioner irrespective of liquidation of the concerned bank.

¶28

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon orders passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6760 of 2013 and L.P.A. No. 418 of 2019 and refers to paragraph nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8.

¶29

Arguments of the Respondents

¶30

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer has referred to Clause 4 and 5 of the order dated 31.05.1989 (Annexure10) and submits that the fund for payment to the ‘paid managers’ was to be collected from the fund of the PACS/LAMPS of the concerned bank depending upon the recovery. He further submits that as there was no recovery, there was no fund to make payment to the petitioner be it salary or incentives. The learned counsel submits that the concerned bank is admittedly under liquidation and the bank has not been made a party in the present proceedings. The learned counsel has referred to a judgement passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1232 of 2016 dated 23.10.2019 to submit that otherwise also, whenever any direction was issued, it was issued to the State Cooperative Bank and the State Cooperative Bank is not a party in the present proceedings and therefore, no direction can be issued to make payment to the petitioner.

¶31

8. The learned counsel, while defending the impugned order, has submitted that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with

¶32

¶33

law and the same does not call for any interference. The learned counsel has also referred to the counter-affidavit filed on 21.11.2012 and has referred to para 8 to submit that the paid managers had prayed for regularization of services before Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2312 of 1991 and the Hon’ble Patna High Court had directed the State Government to regularize their services in view of the scheme formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Bihar versus Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabandhak Seva Sangh, Patna and others” reported in (1988) 8 SCC 218 and the services of those paid managers who appeared and passed in the examination conducted by the State Government has been regularized in the other departments of the State.

¶34

9. The learned counsel appearing for the aforesaid respondents has further referred to para no. 10 of the counter-affidavit dated 29.07.2021 to submit that the petitioner is one of those paid managers who have not been able to clear the examination and thus has not been regularized in government service. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶35

Findings of this Court

¶36

10. It is the specific case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed as Paid Manager on temporary basis in the District Cooperative Office, Palamau, Hariharganj Block in the month of January, 1977 and subsequently, he was directed to join Bishrampur block. In the year, 1989, the petitioner was suspended for some allegations and in the year 1992, he filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1740 of 1992(R) seeking revocation of his suspension. 11. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.05.1993 (Annexure-5) directing the respondents to start departmental proceedings against the petitioner and conclude the same within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and it was also directed that if the said departmental proceeding is not concluded, the suspension shall automatically be revoked and the petitioner be entitled to resume his duties.

¶37

12. It is the specific case of the petitioner that pursuant to such order, he gave his joining on 26.11.1993 (Annexure-6) and thereafter,

¶38

¶39

filed several representations for release of salary right from 01.09.1993 to 05.12.2006 and vide memo no. 01 dated 17.01.2008 (Annexure- 8), the petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2008.

¶40

13. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representations as contained in Annexure- 9 series for arrears of his salary and ultimately, filed writ petition before this Court bearing W.P.(S) No. 5491 of 2008 wherein notice was issued to the District Cooperative Officer, Palamau on 04.05.2010 asking the concerned authority to explain as to why arrears of salary could not be released although services of the petitioner was continued to be taken till the date of his retirement.

¶41

14. Pursuant thereto, the District Cooperative Officer, Daltonganj appeared and filed show-cause and produced a cheque of Rs.1,19,573/- payable in favour of the petitioner and explained the facts and circumstances and inability regarding payment of rest of the amount towards arrears and salary of the petitioner. Thereafter, notice was also issued to the Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand to appear in person and submit his statement on affidavit and to give a firm statement as to by what time, the demand for payment of arrears of salary to the employees of District Cadre Societies in Palamau and other districts of the State, would be met. Ultimately, vide order dated 04.01.2011 (Annexure12), the writ petition was disposed after recording that divergent stand was taken by different respondents in connection with liability to pay the salary of the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 of the said case had submitted that the petitioner was not the employee of the Cooperative Bank and he was an employee of District Cadre Society. The State had submitted that the petitioner was not the employee of the State Government and therefore, the State Government had no liability to pay his salary. In view of the aforesaid divergent stand of the respondents, the following order was passed:

¶42

“In view of the said divergent contentions, it is not clear as to who is responsible for clearing the dues of the petitioner. However, it is admitted position that the State Government has given some grant for payment of salary to the Paid Managers and that the District Cooperative Officer-cum-Assistant Liquidator has paid the said amount to the petitioner even during the pendency of this writ petition.

¶43

¶44

It has been informed that the Registrar, Cooperative Society has released some fund and will release further fund for payment of salary.

¶45

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to raise his claim before the Registrar, Cooperative Society for his remaining dues. On receipt of the petitioner’s claim/representation, the Registrar, Cooperative Society shall consider the same and pass reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the claim/representation.

¶46

If the petitioner is found entitled to get the amount claimed by him, the same shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months thereafter.”

¶47

15. The impugned order has been passed pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 04.01.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5491 of 2008.

¶48

16. Upon perusal of the order dated 04.01.2011, it appears that certain payment was made to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition amounting to Rs.1,19,573/- by District Cooperative Officer-cum-Assistant Liquidator out of the funds received from the state government and it was informed to the court that the Registrar, Cooperative Society had released some fund and will release further fund for payment of salary.

¶49

17. While disposing off the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5491 of 2008, there was some dispute as to who would be liable to pay the salary to the petitioner but it was not in dispute that the petitioner was entitled to salary till his age of superannuation and it was never the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not working.

¶50

18. However, while considering the representation of the petitioner filed pursuant to order dated 04.01.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5491 of 2008, the respondent authority raised a dispute regarding entitlement of the petitioner to receive salary by recording that no document was produced from the side of the petitioner showing allotment/assignment of works to the petitioner after his joining and the performance of the petitioner was not up to the mark (zero) so the fund could not be generated to make payment to the petitioner and due to non-performance of the cooperative managers , the District Central cooperative bank was in the stage of liquidation. The respondent authority was of a definite view that payment to the paid managers is based only upon their work performance as per order no. 503 dated

¶51

¶52

31.05.1989 of Department Of Co-operation, state of Bihar and payment is to be made from the amount credited by the contributors of Central Cooperative Banks, PACS etc. It has also been recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner is neither an employee of the State Government nor an employee of the District Cooperative Bank. It has been held in the impugned order that there was no obligation of the respondents to make any payment to the petitioner against salary and other retiral benefits keeping in view his zero performance and service conditions and ultimately, dismissed the claim of the petitioner by holding that liability of his payment will neither fall on the State Government nor on the District Central Cooperative Bank.

¶53

19. This Court also finds that it is not in dispute that after suspension, the petitioner had joined the duty on 26.11.1993 pursuant to order dated 13.05.1993 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1740 of 1992(R) and no departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was made to superannuate upon completion of service period and the petitioner was asked to hand over the charge for which a letter dated 17.01.2008 (Annexure-8) was issued.

¶54

20. This Court finds that in the earlier round of litigation, payment to the extent of Rs.1,19,573/- was admitted and paid to the petitioner and for the balance claim, the respondents were to pass a reasoned order. In the earlier round of litigation in W.P.(S) No. 5491 of 2008 the entitlement of the petitioner to receive salary from 26.11.1993 till his date of retirement was never in dispute but the respective respondents had denied their respective liability before the writ proceedings. It was never in dispute that the petitioner had joined the duty on 26.11.1993 and discontinued from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2008. The authority, while passing the impugned order, rejected the entire claim on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce showing any document/assessment of work of the petitioner after his joining or his performance regarding his work done and also held that persons like the petitioner were responsible for liquidation of District Central Cooperative Bank. Primarily, the claim of salary of the petitioner was rejected by referring to order no. 503 dated 31.05.1989 and mentioning that salary

¶55

¶56

is payable solely on performance and as there was no performance, no salary was payable to the petitioner.

¶57

21. This Court also finds that in the supplementary counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 dated 29.07.2021, a specific stand has been taken by the respondents in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 that in case of “Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabhandak Sangh Vs. State of Bihar and Others” reported in 1993 (3) PLJR 110 it was held that the Paid Managers were neither government employees nor were employees of the Bank. Thereafter, another writ petition was filed by the Paid Managers before Hon’ble Patna High Court bearing C.W.J.C. No. 2312 of 1991 wherein their prayer for regularization of services was considered and in view of the scheme formulated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Bihar Vs. Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabandhak Seva Sangh, Patna and Others” reported in (1988) 8 SCC 218 , the services of those Paid Managers who have appeared and passed the examination conducted by the State Government was regularized in other departments of the State. It has been specifically stated in paragraph no. 10 that petitioner is one of those Paid Managers who had not been able to clear the examination and thus, had not been regularized in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶58

This court finds that no such ground has been taken by the respondents in the impugned order that the petitioner could not clear the exam for regularization. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that he was regularized in the service of the State government, rather the petitioner is claiming the salary as per the aforesaid circular dated 31.05.1989 (Annexure- 10) which has nothing to do with the pay of the regular employees of the State and those paid managers who have been regularized by the state will be paid salary as per the norms of the state government and not as per the aforesaid circular dated 31.05.1989 (Annexure- 10). Accordingly, the aforesaid judgements /stand relied upon by the respondents in the supplementary counter affidavit does not help the respondents in any manner whatsoever. 22. This Court is of considered view that the concerned respondent has wrongly interpreted the order no. 503 dated 31.05.1989 while passing the impugned order. Upon perusal of the order no. 503 dated

¶59

¶60

31.05.1989, it is clear that the payment to paid managers was not based on performance only. The performance allowance was to be paid as per clause- 3 of order dated 31.05.1989 (Annexure- 10) over and above salary in terms of clause 2(Ka) of the said order dated 31.05.1989 (Annexure- 10) which mentions the pay-scale payable to the Paid Managers. Even if it is taken as correct as recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner’s work performance was not satisfactory, then the petitioner could at best be denied performance allowance under clause- 3 of order dated 31.05.1989 (Annexure- 10) but still would be entitled to salary in terms of clause 2(Ka) of the said order dated 31.05.1989 (Annexure- 10). The concerned authority has completely ignored clause 2(Ka) of the said order dated 31.05.1989 (Annexure- 10) while passing the impugned order. Even if the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory on account of alleged non-allocation of work to the petitioner right from 26.11.1993 onwards, then also the petitioner was entitled for the pay-scale in terms of Clause -2(Ka). This court is of the considered view that it is for the authorities to allocate or not to allocate work to an employee and once a person is on roll, he cannot be denied salary as per the terms of his employment.

¶61

23. This Court is of the considered view that the payment to petitioner being Paid Manager is to be made by the respondent bank or by its successor, though the source of fund is different from that of regular employees. Merely because the Paid Managers have been held to be not employee of the State Government or the district central cooperative bank, the same by itself does not disentitle the paid managers from payment of remuneration from the respondent cooperative bank. This view has been taken by this court in para 15 of the judgement passed in the case of Banarash Prasad Rai and others versus the state of Jharkhand and others being W.P.(S) No. 268 of 2010 decided on 06.05.2022. Apart from the aforesaid view, this court has also taken into consideration the earlier judgments passed by this court and recorded as under in para 16 to 20: -

¶62

“

¶63

16.In the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No.1232 of 2016 disposed of on 23.10.2019, an objection was raised by the respondent bank that the paid managers are not entitled

¶64

¶65

to any salary as they are not the employee of the concerned bank. In the said judgement, this Court has considered one letter dated 12.09.1990 which clarified that the respondent cooperative bank is only responsible for making payment of salary to the paid managers and it was also clarified that the same may be adjusted by getting grant in aid from the State and this Court passed the following order:

¶66

“Admittedly, the petitioner is entitled for salary of the aforesaid period as it has not been denied that the petitioner has worked for the said period. As the petitioner has already superannuated, I hereby direct the respondent no.6 to pass effective orders regarding payment of arrears of salary. Needless to say, that in view of the letter dated 12.09.1990, the same can be adjusted after getting grant in aid from the state government.”

¶67

It is not in dispute that the case of the petitioners is similar to the writ petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 6760 of 2013 disposed of on 28.01.2016 against which appeal being L.P.A. No.418 of 2019 was also dismissed on 19.02.2020, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has taken note of the various judgments passed by this Court in the matter of payment to paid managers and held as follows:

¶68

“ Admitted fact herein is that the learned Single Judge while dealing with the issue about payment of salary of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 from 01.01.1999 to 10.05.2004, during which the writ-petitioner/respondent No.1 had worked as Paid Manager the fact has been brought before the writ Court with respect to the orders passed by the other co-ordinate Benches of this Court and in pursuance thereto, by following the principle of judicial discipline, the writ petition has been allowed. Further, it is not the case of the appellant that the orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches have been reversed by the higher forum rather it is the admitted case that the orders passed by the other Benches in writ petitions being W.P.(S) No.1901 of 2006, W.P.(S) No.4778 of 2006, W.P.(S) No.1956 of 2009 and W.P.(S) No.5033 of 2012 have already been complied with.

¶69

The further question herein is, can the respondents be allowed to discriminate the writ-petitioner merely on the ground of opening of Pandora’s box and alleged discriminatory towards the employees whose claims have been rejected. The answer of this Court would be in negative as because if the order passed by the learned Single Judge will be held to be improper and illegal by setting it aside, it will lead to discrimination towards the writ-petitioner as because the other co-employees who have come to this Court by way of several writ petitions

¶70

¶71

have already been paid their salary. If the State authority would have any grievance as has been agitated in the present appeal, it was available to them to assail the orders passed by this court in other writ petitions being W.P.(S) No.1901 of 2006, W.P.(S) No.4778 of 2006, W.P.(S) No.1956 of 2009 and W.P.(S) No.5033 of 2012 but the appellant authority has chosen not to do so, therefore, this Court is of the view that if the learned Single Judge has passed the order which is impugned in this appeal purely on the basis of the fact that on similar circumstances, the orders have been passed by the other co-ordinate benches, the said order cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity.”

¶72

It is further not in dispute that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench was challenged by Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank Limited before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid S.L.P. and the S.L.P. was also dismissed.

¶73

This court finds that a number of orders have been passed by this court including in the case W.P. (S) No. 1232 of 2016 wherein a direction was issued to the Bank to pass effective orders regarding payment of arrears of salary with a further observation in view of letter dated 12.09.1990 the same can be adjusted after getting grant-in- Aid from the state government.

¶74

It is not in dispute that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgement passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 6760 of 2013 disposed of on 28.01.2016. Maintaining the parity amongst similarly situated persons, the present petitioners are also entitled to similar relief.”

¶75

24. This court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgement passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 6760 of 2013 disposed of on 28.01.2016 (upheld in L.P.A. No.418 of 2019 against which S.L.P was also dismissed) followed in W.P.(S) No. 268 of 2010 decided on 06.05.2022.

¶76

25. In view of the aforesaid findings, the impugned order contained in memo no. 1106 dated 10.05.2011 (Annexure-13) as well as the consequential order contained in letter no. 40 dated 15.04.2011 (Annexure-13/1) denying differential salary for the period from 26.11.1993 to 31.01.2008 [ after deducting the amount of Rs.1,19,573/paid during the pendency of W.P.(S) Nos. 5491 of 2008 ], are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law which are accordingly set-

¶77

¶78

aside. In view of the undisputed fact regarding joining by the petitioner on 26.11.1993 and attaining the age of retirement on 31.01.2008 while in service as per Annexure -8 issued by the concerned authority, the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary in terms of clause 2(Ka) of the said order dated 31.05.1989 (Annexure10) for the period from 26.11.1993 to 31.01.2008 after deducting the amount of Rs.1,19,573/- paid during the pendency of W.P.(S) No. 5491 of 2008.

¶79

26. It is not in dispute that the successor in interest of the District Cooperative Banks is Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Limited. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to lodge his claim of remaining salary before the Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Limited for the period from 26.11.1993 to 31.01.2008 after deducting the amount of Rs.1,19,573/- already paid during the pendency of W.P.(S) No. 5491 of 2008 within one month from today for payment in terms of the aforesaid observations and directions. It is also observed that it would be permissible for the said authority to adjust payment so made against the grant-in-aid received from the State Government in view of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 1232 of 2016 dated 23.10.2019.

¶80

27. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶81

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶82

Pankaj

Ramjagi Singh Ramjangi Singh v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramjagi Singh Ramjangi Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mary Tuti Vs Ranchi University Represented through Its Registrar and Ors.

Ram Charitra Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mary Tuti Vs the Bank of India through Its Chairman and Ors.

Shakila Bano Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Karan Jaisawal Alias Karan Rout Alias Karan Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Noori Khatoon Alias Nuri Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand