Allowed¶24

The President Millat Academy Jharia v. Shabina Khatoon

Jharkhand HC10 Jul 2025A.C.(S.B.)/14/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Millat Academy Jharia Dhanbad; suspension order 12.07.2004; subsistence allowance; suspension-period pay; interest 12% per annum; Jharkhand Education Tribunal Ranchi; Case No. 53 of 2007 (J.E.T.); I.A. No. 976 of 2019; ad-hoc teacher; Sahyog Rashi; non-permanent employee; Annexure-6; Chetriya High School Khodaibag; Shabina Khatoon; Sefavat Hussain; A.C. (S.B.) No. 14 of 2008; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava; 10.07.2025; 2025:JHHC:19048; appeal allowed; tribunal order set aside.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal dated 15.04.2008 (setting aside the 12.07.2004 suspension and awarding suspension-period pay with 12% interest) set aside; pending I.A. No. 976 of 2019 disposed of. ¶24

The President Millat Academy Jharia Vs Shabina Khatoon — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the tribunal's direction to pay the respondent subsistence allowance (full suspension-period pay with interest @ 12% per annum) was sustainable, given the appellants' plea that the respondent was never appointed on salary basis, was not a permanent employee, and had joined another school. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The court found merit in the appeal on the ground that the respondent's job was ad-hoc and temporary in nature and she was working in another school as per Annexure-6 appended with I.A. No. 976 of 2019.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The impugned judgment of the tribunal dated 15.04.2008 (awarding suspension-period pay with 12% interest) was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

¶24

Key takeaways

The pending I.A. No. 976 of 2019 was disposed of in view of the final disposal of the appeal.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal (A.C. (S.B.) No. 14 of 2008) by the President and Secretary of Millat Academy, Jharia (Dhanbad) against the order dated 15.04.2008 of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No. 53 of 2007, whereby the tribunal had set aside the respondent Shabina Khatoon's suspension dated 12.07.2004, deemed her to be in service, and directed full pay for the suspension period with interest @ 12% per annum. The appellants contended that the respondent was never a permanent employee, was engaged ad-hoc and paid Sahyog Rashi per class (plea recorded in pending I.A. No. 976 of 2019), and was working at another school (Chetriya High School, Khodaibag, joined 04.12.2006, per Annexure-6). The respondent's counsel conceded he could not contact her and she took no steps in the appeal. Holding that the respondent's job was ad-hoc and temporary and that she was working in another school, the Court found merit in the appeal, set aside the impugned tribunal judgment, allowed the appeal, and disposed of pending I.A. No. 976 of 2019. (Judgment: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.; dated 10.07.2025; neutral citation 2025:JHHC:19048.)

¶1

2025:JHHC:19048

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

A.C. (S.B.) No. 14 of 2008

¶4

1. The President, Millat Academy, Jharia, at Raja Manzil, Phal Mandi, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District-Dhanbad.

¶5

2. The Secretary, Millat Academy, Jharia, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, DistrictDhanbad.

¶6

… Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shabina Khatoon wife of Sefavat Hussain, Presently resident of village Millat Academy, Jharia Upper Kulhi, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, DistrictDhanbad. … Respondent

¶9

Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶10

For the Appellants : Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Md. Hatim, Adv.

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

Dated:- 10.07.2025

¶13

By Court:-

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

¶15

2 . Instant appeal case has been preferred against the order dated 15.04.2008 passed by learned J.E.T., Ranchi in Case No. 53 of 2007 (J.E.T.) whereby and whereunder the order of suspension dated 12.07.2004 has been set aside by holding that the respondent shall be deemed to put in service and shall be entitled to pay in full the suspension period with interest @ 12% per annum.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent (Smt. Shabina Khatoon) has filed a case No. 53 of 2007 before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi for setting aside her suspension of the order dated 12.07.2004 issued under the Signature of President of

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

2025:JHHC:19048

¶19

School in question i.e. Millat Academy, Jharia, District-Dhanbad whereby the respondent was put under suspension with effect from 12.07.2004 only on the ground that no subsistence allowance has been fixed during the period of suspension as well as the headquarter, where she has to put her attendance. The learned tribunal without taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner (respondent herein) had already joined service before filing of this case and never attended the school inspite of that the order was passed to pay subsistence allowance to the delinquent applicant from the date of suspension with interest @ 12 % per annum. It is further submitted that an I.A. No. 976 of 2019 is also pending for hearing wherein it is specifically stated by appellants that the respondent was not a permanent employee of the appellants (School) and she was appointed on ad-hoc basis and paid some Sahyog Rashi depending on the number of classes.

¶20

4. After long absence of ten months, the respondent suddenly appeared and insisted for her engagement and tried to create nuisance in the school by putting pressure on school management hence, letter of suspension was issued against her. The appellants have taken specific plea that the respondent is still working as a teacher in another school at Chetriya High School, Khodaibag ( Annexure-6 of the Interlocutory application) which shows that she joined the said school on 04.12.2006. Since the respondent was never appointed on salary basis and was never a permanent employee and she was only been suspended rather terminated from service due to absence of considerable period. Therefore, order passed by learned tribunal for payment of subsistence allowance to the respondent is absolutely illegal and not sustainable.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

2025:JHHC:19048

¶23

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Md. Hatim has fairly admitted that he could not contact with the respondent inspite of specific endeavor and no communication has been made by her in respect of this case and not taking any steps for hearing of this appeal.

¶24

6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent and the nature of job of the respondent which was on ad-hoc and temporary basis and she is also working in another school as per Annexure-6 appended with I.A. No. 976 of 2019. I find merits in this appeal, therefore impugned judgment is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed .

¶25

7. Pending I.A. No. 976 of 2019 is also disposed of in view of final disposal of this appeal.

¶26

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶27

Amar / Uploaded

¶28

Page 3 of 3

The President Millat Academy Jharia v. Shabina Khatoon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The President Millat Academy Jharia v. Shabina Khatoon

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

Mampi Banerjee Vs Lal Mohan Chatterjee

Anirudh Pathak Vs Quraisha Bibi And Ors.

Jugal Kishore Khuteta Vs Shanti Devi Mansingka and Ors.

Dibru Oraon And Anr. Vs Mangra Oraon And Ors.

Sanju Sharma Vs Prashant

Shruti Kumari Vs Aditya Kumar