Disposed

Ashok Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Jan 2023WPC/1067/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, removed as Chairman of Child Welfare Committee without show-cause, contested removal claiming lack of reasoning. Court held contract expired; directed petitioner to seek dues via Deputy Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Deputy Commissioner, Palamau with a representation for recovery of unpaid emoluments payable within four weeks of receipt.

Ashok Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1067 of 2018

¶2

----

¶3

Ashok Prasad son of Late Krishna Sah, resident of Mahla, Jailhata, PO PS Daltonganj, District Palamau.

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Women, Child Development and Social Security, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj

¶8

The District Social Welfare Officer, Palamau at Daltonganj.

¶9

The Director cum Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Child Protection Organisation, Near Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

----

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

¶13

---For the Petitioner : Mr. Mitul Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Praveen Akhouri, SC (Mines) I Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, AC to SC (Mines) I

¶14

8/ 16.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶15

2. Petitioner was engaged as Chairman, Child Welfare Committee at Palamau. Vide order dated 30.11.2017 contained in Memo No.1871, he was removed. The ground mentioned in the order of removal is he was not performing his duties properly. Admittedly, without serving any show cause, petitioner was removed.

¶16

3. Though a notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.08.2017 seeking him to explain as to why he has marked his attendance though he remained absent from his office, yet the impugned order of disengagement does not even suggest that whether the defence of the petitioner was considered or not. In one line, without considering any reasons, petitioner was disengaged. If the Deputy Commissioner was disagreeing with the defence of the petitioner, he should have at least mentioned in the impugned order, as to why he is disagreeing with the submissions made by the petitioner. Order of removal is unreasoned one as the reason for removal has not been mentioned, only it has been mentioned that he was not performing his duties properly. This is absolutely a vague order.

¶17

4. Appointment of the petitioner was contractual for a period of three years. Three years have already lapsed. Thus, there cannot be any order to

¶18

-: 2 :-

¶19

reinstate him. Thus, I hold that the order of removal on disengagement will not come in the way of the petitioner, if he seeks any future engagement. 5. So far as the claim of the petitioner that he has not been paid his emoluments, I direct the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau by filing a representation along with a copy of this order. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, within four weeks of receipt of the said representation, will look into the grievance and pass an appropriate order. If it is found that any amount is due to the petitioner for the period he has actually worked, the same should be paid to him within four weeks thereafter. 6 With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶20

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶21

Kumar/S.K/Cp-02

Ashok Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Prasad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sri Anil Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdhesh Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Rajesh Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Serajuddin Vs Central Coalfields Limited through Its Managing Director through Its Managing Director