Disposed¶34

Shyama Kant Jha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Apr 2024WPC/140/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shyama Kant Jha v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(S) No. 140 of 2023, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Anubha Rawat Choudhary J., decided 12.04.2024; dismissal and reinstatement of Jharkhand Armed Police personnel; full pension and gratuity on 7th pay revision; recall of Memo No. 1056 dated 09.05.2022; prior orders Memo No. 92 dated 06.06.2009, W.P.(S) No. 6070 of 2009 (order dated 20.01.2021), CWJC No. 5839 of 1999(P); back wages for intervening period 27.08.1988 to 27.11.1998; 'no work no pay'; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No new relief granted by this Court; remaining benefits having already been paid, the writ petition was disposed of, the prayer for back wages having been declined. ¶34

Shyama Kant Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No new relief granted by this Court; remaining benefits having already been paid, the writ petition was disposed of, the prayer for back wages having been declined.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to full pension and gratuity computed on the revised pay scale, i.e., the 7th pay revision, rather than the reduced percentage actually paid. +2 more

¶25

Ratio / Principle

There is nothing on record to suggest what steps were taken by the petitioner for early disposal of the pending writ petition, and the earlier order of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6070 of 2009 does not contain any direction for payment of back wages for the intervening period.

¶32

Key takeaways

Background finding: the petitioner had earlier been dismissed from service on account of departmental proceedings, but by virtue of the order passed by this Court the order of punishment was modified, as the Court had viewed the point of disproportionate punishment as requiring consideration by the respondents.obiter¶29
Considering the admitted position that the petitioner did not work during the intervening period 27.08.1988 to 27.11.1998, the respondents rightly exercised their power in refusing to grant back wages on the 'no work no pay' principle; accordingly, the Court was not inclined to issue any further direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India requiring payment of back wages for that period.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.(S) No. 140 of 2023, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 12.04.2024, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) by Shyama Kant Jha, a Jharkhand police member whose punishment order, after suspension from 16.09.1994 and disciplinary proceedings, was pursued through CWJC No. 5839 of 1999(P) (disposed 19.02.2009 with direction to consider statutory revisional remedy and disproportionate punishment), then through W.P.(S) No. 6070 of 2009, wherein this Court's order dated 20.01.2021 quashed Memo No. 92 dated 06.06.2009 and remitted the quantum-of-punishment question; the Deputy Inspector General of Police subsequently passed an order granting post-retiral benefits counting service from 27.08.1988 to 27.11.1998. Petitioner sought full pension and gratuity on the 7th pay-revision scale, recall of Memo No. 1056 dated 09.05.2022, and full back wages with increments for the intervening period. Held: as the petitioner admittedly rendered no work during the intervening period, nothing on record showed steps for early disposal, and the Court's earlier order contained no back-wages direction, the respondents rightly refused back wages on 'no work no pay', and no further Article 226 direction was issued; with remaining benefits already paid, the petition was disposed of and pending interlocutory applications closed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 140 of 2023

¶3

Shyama Kant Jha, aged about 61 years, Son of Sri Gangadhar Jha, Resident of Village-Khojwa, Р.О. and P.S.-Saraiyahat, DistrictDumka. … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Sector-II, Quarter No. E/305, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶7

The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-7, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. - Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh.

¶8

The Principal Accountant General (A&E) at Doranda, P.O. and P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶9

… … Respondents

¶10

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG

¶13

¶14

05 /12.04.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶15

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

¶16

“For issuance of an appropriate Writ/s, Order/s, Direction/s commanding and directing upon the respondents to fix the full pension of the Petitioner and also to give the benefits of full gratuity to the Petitioner, since without calculating the average emoluments of the back Period the service of the Petitioner as per revision pay-scale upto 7^th pay-revision, the Petitioner has been deprived with his 100% pension with gratuity against the law even after the case of the Petitioner for his reinstatement in service has been considered pursuant to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 6070 of 2009;

¶17

AND

¶18

Further to direct the respondents to recall the order contained in Memo No. 1056 dated 09.05.2022 being issued under signature of the Commandant, Jharkhand, Armed Police-7, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 4) and to pass a fresh order with respect to payment of full pension and gratuity to the Petitioner without any impediment since the period of service of the Petitioner from the date of his joining to date of his dismissal has been considered, though after dismissal of service, the Petitioner was not gainfully employed and accordingly is entitled for back wages and he is also entitled for the revised pay-scale with effect from 27.08.1988 till consideration of his case pertaining to reinstatement by the order of the Director, Inspector General of Police, Ranchi (Respondent No. 02).”

¶19

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was put under suspension with effect from 16.09.1994 and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The order of punishment was assailed before the Hon’ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 5839 of 1999(P) and after creation of the State of Jharkhand, the same was transferred to this Court and finally disposed of vide order dated 19.02.2009 by observing that the petitioner had not invoked the statutory revisional remedy provided under the Act and the respondents were directed to consider the same and also consider the issue of disproportionate punishment.

¶21

4. Thereafter, fresh order was passed as contained in Memo No. 92 dated 06.06.2009, which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 6070 of 2009. Vide order dated 20.01.2021 in W.P.(S) No. 6070 of 2009, this Court observed that the authority had not applied its mind and had just confirmed the punishment and there was no finding with regard to quantum of punishment. Consequently, the order contained in Memo No. 92 dated 06.06.2009 was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 3 with a direction to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner only on the quantum of punishment and pass fresh order. By this time, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, and therefore the entire exercise was to be completed by the appellate authority within a period of four months.

¶22

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his representation before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand who considered the case of the petitioner sympathetically and order entitling the petitioner for his post-retirement benefits including the pension and gratuity was passed taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation in January 2021, and the order for payment of post-retiral benefits was passed by counting the period of service with effect from 27.08.1988 to 27.11.1998.

¶23

6. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the petitioner was not paid 90% pension and gratuity, though the

¶24

¶25

petitioner was entitled for full pension and gratuity on the basis of revised pay scale, i.e., 7th pay revision.

¶26

7. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the matter remained pending before this Court for several years, and during the intervening period the petitioner was not gainfully employed and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for his back wages including increment and other benefits of service.

¶27

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been granted the post-retiral benefits, but no back wages has been granted to the petitioner for the intervening period from 27.08.1988 to 27.11.1998 on the ground of ‘no work no pay’, and the said period has been adjusted against extraordinary leave. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer an account of pendency of the case before this Court, and therefore, the respondents be also directed to grant full wages for the intervening period.

¶28

9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the grievance of the petitioner has been fully redressed and the petitioner has been granted the benefit of modification of order of punishment. The fact remains that the petitioner was found guilty in the departmental proceeding which has not been interfered by this Court. She submits that at the time of disposal of the writ petition, there was no direction for payment of full back wages and therefore, the order passed by this Court has been complied in letter and spirit. It is submitted that the petitioner having not worked during the intervening period, the respondents have rightly exercised their power by referring to ‘no work no pay’ principle.

¶29

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner was earlier dismissed from service on account of departmental proceedings, but by virtue of the order passed by this Court, the order of punishment was modified as this Court was of the view that the point of disproportionate punishment was required to be considered by the respondents.

¶30

¶31

11. Admittedly, the petitioner remained out of service during the period from 27.08.1988 to 27.11.1998 and the petitioner is alleging that the matter remained pending before this Court for years together and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for full back wages.

¶32

12. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that as to what steps were taken by the petitioner for early disposal of the writ petition and further, the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6070 of 2009 in the case of the petitioner does not contain any direction for the payment of back wages for the intervening period.

¶33

13. Considering the admitted position that the petitioner did not work during the intervening period i.e. from 27.08.1988 to 27.11.1998, this Court is of the view that the respondents have rightly exercised their power in refusing to grant back wages. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to issue any further direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the respondents to give back wages to the petitioner for the aforesaid intervening period.

¶34

14. The remaining benefits having been paid, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶36

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶37

Pankaj

¶38

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order contained in Memo No. 1056 dated 09.05.2022 relating to pension/gratuity computation, which the petitioner prayed to have recalled so that a fresh order for full pension and gratuity could be passed.¶18
Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-7, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 4) · 09.05.2022
Prior proceeding
Petitioner was put under suspension with effect from 16.09.1994 and subjected to disciplinary proceedings culminating in punishment.¶20
Prior proceeding
The order of punishment was assailed before the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 5839 of 1999(P); after creation of the State of Jharkhand the case was transferred to this Court.¶20
Prior proceeding
That petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.02.2009, observing that the petitioner had not invoked the statutory revisional remedy provided under the Act, and directing the respondents to consider the same and also the issue of disproportionate punishment.¶20
Prior proceeding
Fresh order was thereafter passed as contained in Memo No. 92 dated 06.06.2009, which the petitioner challenged in W.P.(S) No. 6070 of 2009.¶21
Prior proceeding
Vide order dated 20.01.2021 in W.P.(S) No. 6070 of 2009, this Court found the authority had merely confirmed punishment without applying its mind or any finding on quantum; Memo No. 92 dated 06.06.2009 was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted to Respondent No. 3 to reconsider the appeal only on quantum of punishment and pass fresh order within four months, the petitioner having by then attained the age of superannuation.¶21
Prior proceeding
The petitioner filed a representation before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, who considered the case sympathetically; the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation in January 2021.¶22
Prior proceeding
Order for payment of post-retiral benefits (including pension and gratuity) was passed by counting the period of service from 27.08.1988 to 27.11.1998.¶22

Shyama Kant Jha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyama Kant Jha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Chandra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S.Tata Engineering And Locomot Vs Sri Jawahar Lal And Ors.

Shreya Kumari Tirkey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dileshwar Nag Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Police 724 Aounkar Kumar Om Vs Home Department