Sundip Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No.4297 of 2021

Sundip Sharma, aged about 65 years, Son of Uma Shankar Sharma, resident of Chitrakoot Yojana Vaishali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Vaishali Nagar, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶3

... ... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand;

¶6

The Hon‟ble High Court of Jharkhand through the Registrar General, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi;

¶7

Registrar (Administration), High Court of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi;

¶8

The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi;

¶9

The Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General (A&E), GE-7, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. –Doranda, DistrictRanchi; … … Respondent s

¶10

… … Respondent s

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sushant Kumar, AC to SC -II For the Resp-Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate --------

¶14

Order No. 08 / Dated: 11^th November, 2024

¶15

The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the following prayers have been

¶16

made:-

¶17

“a. For issuance of Writ particularly in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the letter No. 8138 dated 13.08.2014 (Annexure-6) issued by respondent No 4 and other subsequent letters, whereby and whereunder, the respondent No 4 was pleased to reject the proposal made by the Respondent No 2 with respect to the service of 22 Judicial officers along with the petitioner during the intervening period from 01.04.2011 till their appointment in the regular cadre is notionally treated as continuous service only for pensionary benefits;

¶18

b. For issuance of Writ particularly in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondent authorities for fixation of retirement amount as per the due last basic pay after fixation of salary payable petitioner and in view of the

¶19

observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No 4782 of 2018 vide order dated 11.05.2018 wherein their lordship had held that benefit of the period of service rendered as Fast Track court Judges to be counted for their length of service in determination of their pension and retiral benefits;

¶20

c. For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents authority to grant due increment as per Rule 7 (b) of the Jharkhand Superior Judiciary Service Rules, 2001 and other consequential benefits to the petitioner from the date of joining of the service as Additional District Judge in Fast Track Court;

¶21

d. For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities to grant retiral benefits and other consequential benefits for a period from 31st March 2011 to 11th July, 2013

¶22

And/or

¶23

For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s) or direction(s) or order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in view of the facts & circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.”

¶24

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the writ petitioner so far as the prayer No.1(a) is concerned which is for quashing the letter No.8138 dated 13.08.2014 by which the proposal made by the respondent No.2 with respect to the service of 22 Judicial Officers along with the petitioner during the intervening period from 01.04.2011 till their appointment in the regular cadre is notionally treated as continuous service only for the purpose of pensionary benefits that he is not pressing the said prayer in the light of judgment passed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of „ Mahesh Chandra Verma Vs. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary & Ors. Civil Appeal No.4782 of 2018’.

¶25

So far as the prayer No.1 (b) is concerned which is with respect to the issuance of Writ particularly in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents for fixation of retiral benefits as per the due last basic pay after fixation of salary payable to the petitioner and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of „ Mahesh Chandra Verma Vs. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary & Ors. (Civil Appeal No

¶26

2 WP(S) No.4297 of 2021

¶27

4782 of 2018)’ in which the order was passed on 11.05.2018.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted by referring order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench whereby and whereunder the Accountant General has been directed to file reply with respect to the prayer No.1(b).

¶29

Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General has filed an affidavit on 21.10.2024 stating therein at paragraph 6 supported by the authority letter dated 01.03.2023 issued by the office of the Accountant General has submitted that the said grievance has been redressed and the pension has been revised.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid fact.

¶31

This Court, in view thereof, is of the view that the prayer 1(b) has also been redressed.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has submitted by referring to prayer No. 1(c) which is with respect to issuance of command upon the respondent authority to grant increment as provided under Rule 7 (b) of the Jharkhand Superior Judiciary Service Rules, 2001.

¶33

It has been contended by him by referring to the affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court particularly paragraph 13 thereof wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is required to submit the relevant document i.e. the experience certificate as an Advocate and charge report for taking further step in the matter of grant of additional increment to which the petitioner has already been communicated vide letter No.2247/Apptt. dated 01.07.2019.

¶34

It has been contended that the said part of the requirement has not yet been complied with.

¶35

He has further submitted that liberty may be given to submit the said documents for consideration of the said grievance in terms of the

¶36

3 WP(S) No.4297 of 2021

¶37

provision of Rule 7(b).

¶38

Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court as also the learned State Counsel have no objection to such submission.

¶39

This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the parties, so far as prayer No.1(c) is concerned and on consideration of the statement made at paragraph 13 of the affidavit filed by the High Court whereby and whereunder the following statement has been given which is being referred herein:-

¶40

“13. That it is respectfully stated that the petitioner has submitted an application on 08.05.2019 to the Registrar General, High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi requesting for grant of due increment as per Rule 7(b) of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2001.

¶41

The said application of the petitioner was placed before the learned Registrar (Administration), High Court of Jharkhand and under order of Registrar (Administration), a letter bearing No.2247/Apptt., dated 01.07.2019 was issued to the petitioner with a request to furnish the experience certificate as an Advocate and charge report for taking further step in the matter of grant of additional increments under Rule 7(b) of Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2001. However, it is stated that the petitioner has not submitted the required documents as yet.”

¶42

This Court in view thereof is of the view that the petitioner is being given liberty to submit the said document as required and referred in the communication vide letter No.2247/Apptt. dated 01.07.2019 for taking appropriate decision with respect to the said prayer.

¶43