Allowed

Rajendra Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Aug 2024WPC/5733/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ application, the State of Jharkhand failed to act on the petitioner's claim for promotion owing to exonerated departmental proceedings, instead relying on Nirmal Chandra Sinha. The Bench quashed the rejection memo and remanded the matter for reconsideration under K.V. Jankiraman.

What did the court decide?

The memo rejecting the petitioner's claim is quashed, and the matter is remanded to the Joint Secretary for a fresh decision within eight weeks.

Rajendra Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 5733 of 2019

¶3

-------

¶4

Rajendra Prasad, Son of Late Ghuteshwar Harizan, residing at Harmu Housing Colony, Post Argora, P.S Argora, District Ranchi.

¶5

…... …. Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi officiating from Nepal House, Post Doranda, P.S Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶9

The Joint Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi officiating from Nepal House, Post Doranda, P.S Doranda, District Ranchi. .…. …. Respondent(s)

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, SC (L&C)-III Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, AC to SC ( L&C)-III

¶14

07/ Dated 22.08.2024

¶15

The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of the order contained in Memo No.3440 dated 27.09.2019 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent No.3 the Joint Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby and wherein, the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in the light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 and payment of difference of salary while he was discharging the duties of Superintending Engineer from 21.07.2014 till his superannuation i.e. 30.04.2018, has been rejected.

¶16

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 448/2018 for issuance of direction upon the respondents to constitute a special Departmental Promotion Committee and place the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer from the date on which similarly situated persons were promoted in pursuant to the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 05.10.2015 along-with all consequential benefits including arrears of difference of salary.

¶17

A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and one post was kept vacant under sealed cover awaiting the result of the departmental

¶18

proceeding. Subsequently, the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental proceeding. Despite the fact that the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental proceeding and one post was kept vacant under sealed cover against the result of departmental proceeding, the petitioner was not given promotion.

¶19

Learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 448/2018 vide order dated 24.07.2019 directed the petitioner to file a representation before the respondents for consideration of his case and the respondents were also directed to dispose of his representation, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was entitled for the relief, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as laid down in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 and an order to that effect was to be passed within a period of twenty days from the date of opening of the sealed cover.

¶20

Vide Memo No. 3440 dated 27.09.2019, the Joint Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi had rejected the representation of the petitioner, relying on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Appeal (Civil) No. 8058/2001 in the case of Nirmal Chandra

¶21

Sinha Vs. Union of India and others.

¶22

It appears that respondent No.3 the Joint Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi had rejected the representation of the petitioner, not relying upon the directions of the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.448/2018, directing that his case should be disposed of, in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of

¶23

K.V. Jankiraman’s case (supra).

¶24

In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned Memo No. 3440 dated 27.09.2019 is accordingly, quashed.

¶25

However, the matter is further remanded back to the respondent No.3 the Joint Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for taking fresh decision on the representation of the petitioner in the light of the ratio laid down in K.V. Jankiraman’s case (supra).

¶26

The respondent No.3 the Joint Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi shall pass a reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

This writ application is accordingly, allowed.

¶28

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶29

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶30

B.S/-

Rajendra Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Nimai Chandra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gaitri Devi Vs Welfare

Madhukar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Raj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Sadhu Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.