Rajeshwar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Commercial Tax Deptt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6198 of 2022

1.Rajeshwar Singh, S/o Late Ram Bhagat Singh, R/o Budhu Bihar, Tetar Toli, P.O. Bariatu & P.S. Bariatu, District- Ranchi

¶3

2.Rameshwar Ram Mahli, S/o Late Wakil Ram Mahli, R/o Sundar Nagar, ITI, Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District- Ranchi

¶4

3.Vishwanath Tiwary, S/o Late Milan Tiwary, R/o Budh Bihar, Tetar Toli, P.O. Bariatu & P.S. Bariatu, District- Ranchi

¶5

4.Krishna Bhagat, S/o Baijnath Bhagat, R/o Adalhatu, Shivaji Path Road, P.O.Ranchi University, P.S. Morabadi, Ranchi

¶6

5.Md. Abadur Rahman, S/o Md. Fathiuddin, R/o Doranda, Hathikhana, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Ranchi

¶7

6.Md. Hasan, S/o Late Abdul Rahim Khan, R/o Madarsa Gali, Bariatu Basti, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, Ranchi

¶8

------ Petitioner(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at- Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.Dhurwa, District- Ranchi

¶11

2.The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Jharkhand 3.The Joint Commissioner, (Administration) Commercial Taxes, Ranchi Division, Ranchi

¶12

2.The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ranchi Division, Ranchi, P.O.G.P.O. & P.S.- Kotwali & District- Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶13

------ Respondent(s)

¶14

…… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. -----For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Divyam, AC to S.C.-VI

¶15

06 / 23.01.2025: In this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for mandamus

¶16

upon the respondent-State to immediately confirm the service of the petitioners and consequently to make payment of 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd ACP/ MACP benefits especially taking into consideration that the petitioners have continuously served for more than three decades, without being granted single promotion.

¶17

The admitted fact of this case is that the petitioners were appointed as Peon in the department of Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax (administration) and was posted in the Ranchi Division, Ranchi under the then State of Bihar. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the service of the petitioners was taken over by the State of Jharkhand. The petitioners have worked as Peon and

¶18

superannuated on 31.03.2021, 31.08.2018, 31.03.2013, 31.08.2013, 31.01.2014 and 31.12.2020 respectively in Ranchi Division. It is also an admitted fact that they were getting their pensionary benefits, but neither any promotion was given to the petitioners during their entire tenure of service nor they were granted the benefits of ACP/MACP. Claiming the said benefits, they had approach this Court.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioners that as their services was not confirmed by the Department, they have not been granted the benefit of ACP/MACP though, they have rendered continuous service for more than three decades in the Department before their superannuation.

¶20

The counter affidavit has been filed by the State and the defence has been taken by the respondents that the service of the petitioners has not yet been confirmed and without confirmation of service, the petitioners are not entitled for ACP/MACP benefit. It has been submitted that there was no sanctioned post, when petitioners were appointed. The fact that the petitioners had worked of more than three decades and superannuated from the department and that they are receiving the pensionary benefits, have not been denied by the State. Their appointment is also not denied.

¶21

The aforesaid admitted facts of the case reflects the highest degree of exploitation by the State. After taking service from Peons for more than three decades and after their superannuation, the State’s plea that the services of these petitioners cannot be confirmed, is atrocious. This attitude is unbecoming of a model employer, which is unexpected from the State. Once when the employee has worked for more than three decades, has superannuated and is receiving pension the respondents cannot take a plea that his service cannot be confirmed, to deprive him of the benefits of ACP/MACP. The stand taken by the State Officials is deprecated.

¶22

Thus, a mandamus is issued upon the State of Jharkhand and the

¶23

Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand is directed to take appropriate step to immediately confirm the service of the petitioners and grant them the benefits of ACP/MACP and revise the pension accordingly. The entire process should be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.

¶25

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶26

R.S.

Rajeshwar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Commercial Tax Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Commercial Tax Deptt

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

Babulal Mirdha Vs the Deputy of Jharkhand

Abhay Janardhan Muley Alias Abhay Muley Vs the Union of India Represented through Secretary to the Govt of India

Jawoni Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Binod Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Meera Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand, Thro the Secretary, Deptt of Social Welfare, Women and Child Development

Mrinal Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary