Dismissed

Sudhir Kumar Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Water Resources Division

Jharkhand HC9 Jun 2022WPC/443/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No. 443 of 2020 dismissed a writ petition challenging the shift of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme benefit date. The court found the petitioner failed the Hindi noting and drafting examination until 07.04.2008, validating the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking to quash the Memo amending the ACP Scheme benefit date and commanding grant of benefits from 11.05.2000 was dismissed.

Sudhir Kumar Mishra Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 443 of 2020

¶3

Sudhir Kumar Mishra, aged about 57 years, S/o Dinesh Chandra Mishra, at present Posted as Junior Engineer, Water Resources Division Hazaribagh, At- Water Resources Division Hazaribagh office, PO & PS- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, and permanent R/o Village- Mishrawalia, PO & PS- Garhnokha, PSSasaram, District- Rohtash, State- Bihar. … … Petitioner

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The state of Jharkhand through Secretory, Water Resources Division, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, At- Nepal House, Doranda, PO & PS- Doranda, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶7

The Additional Secretory, Water Resources Division, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, At- Nepal House, Doranda, PO & PSDoranda, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶8

The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Division, Palamau, AtWater Resources Division office Medaninagar, PO GPO, PSSadar, Daltonganj, Dist- Palamau, Jharkhand

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, At- Secretariat office Medaninagar, PO GPO, PS- Sadar, Daltonganj, Dist- Palamau, Jharkhand

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Roopankan (Design) Division No. 01, Medininagar, At- Roopankan (Design) Division No. 01, Medininagar office, PO GPO, PS- Sadar Daltonganj, DistPalamau, Jharkhand.

¶11

The deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, At- Secretariat Office, Hazaribagh, PO & PS- Town Hazaribagh, Dist- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand

¶12

The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Hazaribagh, At- Water Resources Division Office Hazaribagh, PO GPO, PSTown Hazaribagh, Dist- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand

¶13

… … Respondents

¶14

¶15

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶16

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate ---

¶17

12 /09.06.2022 Heard Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶18

2. Heard Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶19

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

¶20

“(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of ‘Certiorari’ for quashing the Memo No. 1991 dated 12.07.2018 (Ann-2), passed by the Respondent no. 2, has amended date of granting benefit of Assured Career progression (ACP) Scheme from the cut of date 11.05.2000 instead of date of passing examination of Hindi note formant dated 07.04.2008 and

¶21

¶22

also directed to recover paid earlier accepted ACP Scheme benefit to the petitioner.

¶23

(b) In the nature of mandamus for commanding upon the respondents to grant the benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) with all consequential benefits from the dated of cut of date 11.05.2000 in accordance with law, which has not been paid to the petitioner as initial appointment of post of Junior Engineer, Arrangement and Monitoring Medininagar Division on 11.05.1988.”

¶24

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the date of shifting of ACP granted to the petitioner from 11.05.2000 to 07.04.2008 on account of the fact that the petitioner has passed the Hindi noting and drafting examination on 07.04.2008. The learned counsel submits that a specific stand has been taken by the petitioner in paragraph 15 of the writ petition that there is no control of the petitioner in conducting departmental examination and the respondent authorities have not taken the examination within time and therefore, the petitioner could not avail of his opportunity to pass the departmental examination.

¶25

5. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that pursuant to order passed by this Court, a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed indicating that Hindi Noting and drafting examination was held on various dates including on 20.06.2004, 15.05.2005, 23.04.2006, 15.04.2007 and 06.04.2008 and therefore, the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph 15 of the writ petition is incorrect. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner having passed the examination of Hindi noting and drafting at a later stage, the impugned order as contained in Annexure2 has been rightly passed.

¶26

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the petitioner has passed the required examination of Hindi noting and drafting on 07.04.2008 and accordingly, by virtue of the impugned order, the cut-off date has been shifted from 11.05.2000 to 07.04.2008. The contention of the petitioner in paragraph 15 is incorrect, inasmuch as, the details of the Hindi noting and drafting examination held earlier have been furnished by the respondents in the supplementary counter-affidavit

¶27

¶28

and admittedly, the petitioner either did not appear in those examinations or was not declared successful.

¶29

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the claim of the petitioner that he should be granted ACP from 11.05.2000 instead of 07.04.2008, is devoid of any merit as the petitioner had not passed the required examination of Hindi noting and drafting on 11.05.2000 and after having passed the examination on 07.04.2008, the date of grant of benefit of ACP in respect of the petitioner has been shifted to 07.04.2008.

¶30

8. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed.

¶31

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶32

Pankaj

Sudhir Kumar Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Water Resources Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kumar Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Water Resources Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ginni Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Oleshwar Pandit Vs State of Jharkhand through Pr Secretary Dept of Personnel Administrative Reform and Raj Bhasha

Siblan Topno Vs State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Usha Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Prasad Singh Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization

Binod Kerketta Vs Union of India And Ors.