Dismissed

Arvind Kumar v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC9 Feb 2023WPC/7306/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenges an order terminating his service, arguing for reinstatement based on Supreme Court observations regarding regularization of similarly situated employees. The Court dismisses the petition because the termination order was already affirmed by the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court, finding the appointments illegal based on prior findings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to deposit costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

Arvind Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7306 of 2011 Arvind Kumar …. ….

¶3

…. …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand.

¶6

Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶7

Dy. Secretary, Water Resources (Flood Control & Irrigation) Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶8

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Medium Irrigation, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶9

Special Land Acquisition Officer, North Koyal Project, Daltonganj. …. … Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK

¶12

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Advocate Mr. Aayush Avant Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, AAG-I

¶13

¶14

10/ 09.02.2023 Heard the parties.

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the letter contained in Memo No. 1376 dated 11.6.2007, whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated.

¶16

Factual matrix of the case, as pleaded in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Mapak / Amin pursuant to order issued by Settlement Officer, North Koyal Project, Daltonganj, Palamu dated 9.5.1987 and was posted at Daltonganj. However, vide letter contained in Memo No. 564 dated 22.2.1997, he was terminated due to non-submission of his appointment letter. Termination order was challenged in CWJC No. 3345 of 1997 (R), whereby, the Patna High Court has been pleased to set aside the termination order. In the meantime, the erstwhile State of Bihar was bifurcated. Therefore, the petitioner gave his joining in the Successor State of Jharkhand, which was not accepted. Thereafter, again he preferred a writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 2013 of 2002, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.3.2002 with direction to accept the joining and to pay the admitted dues to the petitioner. Petitioner joined on 11.7.2002 and salary was also paid.

¶17

Thereafter, in the light of order dated 29.1.2003 passed by the Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 675 of 2000, the State Government vide letter dated 11.6.2007 directed to terminate the services of the petitioner

¶18

¶19

along with several others. It is the case of the petitioner that similarly situated persons, whose services were directed to be terminated, challenged the same before this Court by filing different writ petitions. One of such writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 6590 of 2010, the said termination order dated 11.6.2007 was quashed and in another writ petition, W.P.(S) No. 1192 of 2004, vide order dated 3.3.2004 interim protection was granted. It is further case of the petitioner that the identical matters fell for consideration in W.P.(S) No. 1658 of 2004, W.P.(S) No. 1038 of 2004, W.P.(S) No. 2239 of 2004 and W.P.(S) No. 2223 of 2004 and this Court vide order dated 5.5.2005 has been pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order with direction to reinstate all the persons. Again similar issue fell for consideration in W.P.(S) No. 2238 of 2004 (Gopal Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), which was disposed of vide order dated 18.3.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred L.P.A. No. 421 of 2005 (State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Gopal Singh), which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.9.2006. The State has also preferred other appeals arising out of the order dated 5.5.2005 passed in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions, which also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench. It is further case of the petitioner that in the case of Gopal Singh, the State approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 918 of 2008. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing of the appeal had observed that since these persons are working against the sanctioned post and are continuing for a substantial number of years, it will be better for the State Government to consider as to whether these persons can be regularized. It is further case of the petitioner that considering the aforesaid aspects, one Suresh Prasad and Nand Kishore Pandey have been taken back into service vide office order no. 1100 and 1102 dated 3.4.2002, but no consideration was shown in favour of the petitioner, which compelled him to file the instant writ petition.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the impugned order dated 11.6.2007 is neither sustainable in law nor on facts, inasmuch as, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for reinstatement in the light of the observations given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel further adds that since the petitioner continued in service for more than 20 years, he is entitled to be

¶21

¶22

taken in regular service, that too, when several juniors have taken into service considering the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence, the petitioner is also entitled for the same and similar relief.

¶23

Controverting the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned AAG-I, representing the respondents, submits that on enquiry conducted by the erstwhile State of Bihar against illegal appointment made in Rehabilitation and Land Acquisition Offices, it came to light that several appointments including the petitioner’s appointment was found to be illegal and thereafter, he was terminated vide memo no. 564 dated 22.2.1997. Petitioner challenged the said termination order in CWJC No. 3345 of 1997 (R), which was allowed by setting aside the termination order. Being aggrieved, the State of Bihar filed L.P.A. No. 678 of 2000, whereby, the Division Bench allowed the appeal vide order dated 29.1.2003. Learned counsel further adds that thereafter some of the writ petitioners of L.P.A. No. 678 of 2000 filed appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the said appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 5682-5684 of 2004 was also dismissed. Learned counsel further adds that though in the meantime, the petitioner was reinstated in service in the light of judgment dated 6.3.2002 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2013 of 2002, but in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 678 of 2000, affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5682-5684 of 2004, the petitioner was again terminated vide order dated 11.6.2007, which is under challenge in the writ petition. In view of the admitted position, learned Addl. Advocate General argues that since the petitioner was terminated in view of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench, as affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, no interference is required by this Court and hence, this writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed oughtrightly.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar, this Court is the considered view that no interference is warranted in the writ petition for the following facts and reasons:-

¶25

(i) Though the petitioner was appointed as Amin vide order dated 9.5.1987 and was posted at North Koyal Project, Daltonganj under Rehabilitation and Land Acquisition office, but upon enquiry conducted by the erstwhile State of Bihar, it has been

¶26

¶27

brought to the knowledge that several appointments including the petitioner’s appointment were found to be illegal. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was terminated vide memo no. 564 dated 22.2.1997.

¶28

(ii) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred CWJC No. 3345 of 1997(R) and the same was allowed by order dated 01.03.2000 by setting aside the termination order dated 22.2.1997.

¶29

(iii) In the meantime, the unified State of Bihar was bifurcated and since the petitioner’s service fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Successor State of Jharkhand, the petitioner gave his joining in the Successor State of Jharkhand. However, his joining was not accepted by the State of Jharkhand.

¶30

(iv) Again, the petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No. 2013 of 2002 before this Court for accepting his joining, which was allowed vide order dated 26.3.2002 and pursuant thereto, petitioner’s joining was accepted with effect from 11.7.2002.

¶31

(v) The State of Bihar thereafter challenged the order dated 01.03.2000 passed in CWJC No. 3345 of 1997 (R) and several other connected writ petitions in L.P.A. No. 675 of 2000 and other analogous matters before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, which were allowed by order dated 19.1.2003. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court after hearing the parties held that after appointment of the petitioners in the year 1985 or so, some of them were immediately terminated, but were later on re-employed showing that there were illegally retrenched and thereafter on enquiry, it was found that all such persons were illegally appointed and the appointments were motivated. Even the State Government after finding that the appointments were illegal proposed to terminate the services of such persons and directed registration of first information report against the officers who had issued such orders.

¶32

(vi) Thereafter, some of the writ petitioners of L.P.A. No. 678 of 2000 and other analogous appeals, preferred special leave to appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, being Civil Appeal No. 5682-5684 of 2004 and the same also stood

¶33

¶34

dismissed.

¶35

(vii) Thereafter, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 678 of 2000, which was affirmed in Civil Appeal No. 5682-5684 of 2004, the petitioner was again terminated vide impugned order dated 11.6.2007.

¶36

(viii) Since the order of termination of the petitioner dated 11.6.2007, which is under challenge in the present writ petition, has already been affirmed by the Patna High Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no interference is warranted in the writ petition at all.

¶37

(ix) It appears that the petitioner was much aware of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but he is trying to mislead the Court concealing the important and relevant facts.

¶38

As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, regulations, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, this writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed, with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Authority, Ranchi.

¶39

R.Kr.

Arvind Kumar v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samuel Dungdung Vs Police

Arun Prasad Sahu Vs Home Department And Ors.

Thakur Rajesh Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Anil Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Jit Mohan Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand and Others

Jawahar Prasad Singh Vs the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.