The State of Jharkhand Vs Ganesh Ram — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The State of Jharkhand Vs Ganesh Ram — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the writ Court's direction for payment of salary differential stands intact, subject to verification of the service periods by the appellants.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal by the State deserved interference against the writ Court's direction to pay respondent No. 1 the difference of salary (with consequential benefits) for the periods he worked as Superintending Engineer (in-charge) from 24.07.2007 to 16.09.2009 and as Chief Engineer (in-charge) from 17.09.2009 to 26.11.2019 while being paid the Executive Engineer's scale without increments.

Court's answer

The issue raised in the case was squarely covered by the judgment in Chanda Hembrom (W.P. (S) No. 6618 of 2013), and the appellants had in fact not even disputed that coverage.

Ratio / Principle

The learned writ Court was absolutely correct in directing the appellants to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders for payment of difference of salary for the two in-charge service periods and to make payment thereof along with all consequential benefits.

Key takeaways

The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.ratio¶30
The dismissal is expressly subject to the appellants verifying the correctness and veracity of the period specified by the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1).ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

L.P.A. No. 355 of 2025 (High Court of Jharkhand, decided 22.09.2025) — State's appeal against writ Court direction to pay respondent Ganesh Ram the difference of salary for service as Superintending Engineer (in-charge) from 24.07.2007 to 16.09.2009 and as Chief Engineer (in-charge) from 17.09.2009 to 26.11.2019 while paid in the Executive Engineer's scale without annual increment or consequential benefits. The Court noted the issue was squarely covered by its own judgment in Chanda Hembrom v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., W.P. (S) No. 6618 of 2013 (reported as affirmed up to the Hon'ble Apex Court per counsel's submission below), which the appellants had not disputed before the writ Court. After condoning a delay of 194 days in filing (I.A. No. 4981 of 2025), the Division Bench held the writ Court 'absolutely correct' and dismissed the appeal, clarifying that payment is subject to the appellants verifying the correctness and veracity of the service periods specified by respondent No. 1. Pending applications disposed of. N.A.F.R.

2025:JHHC:29322-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

L.P.A. No. 355 of 2025

The State of Jharkhand

The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, At- Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi. ... ... Appellants

... ... Appellants

Versus

Ganesh Ram, aged about 46 years, S/o. Shri Kali Ram, Resident of Osho Enclave, Bariyatu, P.O. & P.O.- Bariyatu, District- Ranchi.

The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.-Hinoo, P.S.Doranda, District- Ranchi. ... Respondents

... Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------For the Appellants : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-V For the A.G. : Mrs. Oishi Das, Advocate. ---------

02/Dated: 22.09.2025

I.A. No. 4981 of 2025

1. For the reasons stated in this Interlocutory Application, which is duly supported by an affidavit filed by the officer of the appellants, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 194 days that has crept up in filing the Appeal.

2. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay is condoned. This Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 355 of 2025

3. We really wonder why the State has filed the instant appeal given the fact that it was the State itself which is aggrieved that the issue involved in the instant lis was squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6618 of 2013 , case titled Chanda Hembrom v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. , wherein, this Court while dealing with several judgments of different Courts allowed the prayer of the petitioner therein, who like the writ petitioner (respondent herein) had

-1 of 3-

2025:JHHC:29322-DB

discharged the duties of Superintending Engineer with effect from 24.07.2007 till 16.09.2009 and the post of the Chief Engineer with effect from 17.09.2009 till 26.11.2019, but was paid the scale of the Executive Engineer without any annual increment or consequential benefits. The appellants herein, had in fact not even disputed that the issue raised in this case was squarely covered by the judgment in Chanda Hembrom case (supra) , as would be evident from paras 3 and 5 of the order passed by the learned writ Court, which reads as under : -

“3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid fact and fairly submits that the issue involved in this case was already decided in the aforesaid case as such the instant case will be decided on the similar line after verification of record.

4. …… …. ….

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the said order has been affirmed up till Hon’ble Apex Court. Accordingly, the instant writ application is disposed of by directing the respondent no.2 to look into the matter and pass an appropriate order for payment of difference of salary for the period 24.07.2007 till 16.09.2009 (working as Superintending Engineer on in-charge basis) and for the period 17.09.2009 till 26.11.2019 (working as Chief Engineer on in-charge basis) and make payment thereof.

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order .”

4. In such circumstances, obviously, the learned writ Court was absolutely correct in directing the appellants herein, to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders for payment of difference of salary for the period 24.07.2007 till 16.09.2009 (when respondent No. 1 was working as Superintending Engineer on in-charge basis) and for the period from 17.09.2009 till 26.11.2019 (when respondent No. 1 was

-2 of 3-

2025:JHHC:29322-DB

working as the Chief Engineer on in-charge basis) and make payment thereof along with all consequential benefits.

5. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. However, we need to clarify that this would be subject to the appellants verifying the correctness and veracity of period so specified by the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein).

6. Pending Application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

22.09.2025

N.A.F.R.

APK/VK

-3 of 3-