Disposed

Arun Kumar v. Water Resources Department

Jharkhand HC16 Jun 2023WPC/2436/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge disposed of a writ petition seeking confirmation to the post of Executive Engineer. Relying on a Supreme Court clarification that service continuity is not broken despite no monetary benefits during absence, the court dismissed the petition and granted liberty to file a representation to the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition before Respondent No. 2 within four weeks.

Arun Kumar Vs Water Resources Department — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 2436 of 2017

Arun Kumar

..... … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department,

¶7

having its office at Jharkhand Secretariat,

¶8

Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.

¶9

The Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department, having its office at Jharkhand Secretariat, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.

¶10

The Joint Secretary (Management), Water Resource Department, having its office at Jharkhand Secretariat, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.

¶11

The Deputy Secretary (Management), Water Resource Department, having its office at Jharkhand Secretariat, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. ..... … Respondents. --------

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶13

-----For the Petitioner : Md. Imtiyaz Khan, Advocate. : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-III. ------

¶14

18/ 16.06.2023 This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to confirm the service of the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer, as the petitioner was duly promoted on 09.06.2014, but confirmation thereof has not been issued by the respondent authorities. The prayer has been confined to that effect and the other prayers have not been placed at this stage.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this court in W.P.(S) No. 5426 of 2016, challenging the punishment order, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 13.06.2018, wherein the break in service was allowed to be continued without payment during the absence period. He submits that the said order was challenged by the State in the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 583 of 2018, which was allowed on 18.12.2019, wherein the Division Bench has interfered with the judgment of the learned single judge and remanded the matter back to the learned single judge. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already retired from the service. He further submits that aggrieved with the judgment dated 18.12.2019 of Division Bench passed in L.P.A. No. 583 of 2018, the petitioner has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5794 of 2022, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

¶16

-2-

¶17

allowed the said appeal by order dated 24.08.2022 on the following

¶18

terms:-

¶19

“ Leave granted.

¶20

On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge while passing order on 13.6.2018 worked out the equities and the petitioner has been deprived of his salary for a period of absence of six years. The only modification made is that it would not be treated as a break in service.

¶21

The Division Bench has interfered with it by remitting the matter back vide the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2019 when the appellant has already retired on 31.12.2018.

¶22

On hearing learned counsel for parties, we are of the view that another round of litigation spread over years would be unnecessary and the Single Judge was right in limiting the benefits to the appellant of continuity of service without pay. We are of the view that for this break period when the appellant is stated not to have joined, he will not be entitled to any monetary benefits but the continuity of service would not be broken.

¶23

With the aforesaid clarification of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.6.2018, we affirm the same while setting aside the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2019 of the Division Bench.

¶24

Civil appeal is accordingly allowed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.”

¶25

By the above judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to clarify that for the break period when the petitioner is stated not to have joined, he will not be entitled to any monetary benefits, but the continuity of service would not be broken. With that clarification, the judgment of the learned single judge was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the judgment dated 18.12.2019, passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 583 of 2018 was set aside.

¶26

It appears after clarification order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in Civil Appeal No. 5794 of 2022, the petitioner has not moved before the competent authority for passing of the appropriate order in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶27

In that view of the matter, with agreement of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate petition before respondent No. 2 by way of annexing the

¶28

-3-

¶29

orders of the writ court, Division Bench as well as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court within four weeks. If such representation is being filed before the respondent No. 2, who will look into the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5794 of 2022 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter.

¶30

This petition is disposed of.

¶31

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶32

Amitesh/-

Arun Kumar v. Water Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar v. Water Resources Department

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

Rajeev Kumar Singh Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand Thr.C.B.I.

Saraswati Devi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

S.S.Ahmad And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ramdayal Ray Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dhullu Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Timbu Oraon And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Rajeev Kumar Singh  Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand Thr.C.B.I.

Saraswati Devi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

S.S.Ahmad And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ramdayal Ray Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dhullu Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Timbu Oraon And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rajeev Kumar Singh Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand Thr.C.B.I.