Ramnath Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the O.P. No. 1 : Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, AC to SrSC-I For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate Ms. Tanya Rai, Advocate

¶15

Order No. 18

¶16

Dated: 10.01.2024

¶17

The present contempt petition has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding as against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 alleging willful violation of order dated 15.10.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2037 of 2019.

¶18

2. Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4, refers to supplementary show cause affidavit dated 06.04.2022 filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 4, relevant paragraphs of which read as under:

¶19

“11. That it is further submitted that it is an admitted fact that policy had been modified with effect from 27.10.2020. However, in the said policy, as stated above, option criteria is there and panel has to be continued in accordance with the death of the employee who died first will be treated as senior to some who died later. This procedure was followed earlier also.

¶20

The photo copy of office memorandum dated 27.10.2020 has been annexed as Annexure- H to the said supplementary show cause affidavit dated 06.04.2022.

¶21

12. That in the above circumstances, at present the petitioner’s name is running at serial no. 1 of the panel.”

¶22

¶23

3. It is further submitted that the reasoned order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the Director, Soil Conservation Department, Damodar Valley Corporation, Hazaribagh (the opposite party no. 4) has also been annexed with the said supplementary show cause affidavit. It is thus submitted that the contempt proceeding as against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 may be dropped.

¶24

4. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have circumvented the order dated 15.10.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2037 of 2019 as pursuant to the said order, they have mischievously modified the policy on 27.10.2020 to frustrate the petitioner’s claim for being appointed on compassionate ground. It is further submitted that otherwise also, paragraph-5 of the new policy protects the interest of the petitioner as his claim was under consideration much prior to enforcement of the said policy.

¶25

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to initiate the contempt proceeding as against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4.

¶26

6. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 is hereby dropped.

¶27

7. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

8. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse against the reasoned order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the opposite party no. 4 as well as to agitate the issue of his compassionate appointment even after implementation of the new policy dated 27.10.2020 on all available grounds.

¶29

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶30

Ritesh/

Ramnath Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnath Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kumari Neelam Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

MD Sayuz Anzari Vs State of Jharkhand

Dr Ravindra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Kameshwar Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitu Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand