The State of Jharkhand Vs Jaldhar Mandal

¶1

2026:JHHC:4357-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

L.P.A. No. 144 of 2025

¶4

The State of Jharkhand.

¶5

Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.

¶6

… … … Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Jaldhar Mandal, aged 60 years, son of Late Hardeo Mandal, resident of Harmu Road, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi. … … … Respondent

¶9

… … … Respondent

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶12

--------For the Appellants: Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to S.C.-II For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate

¶13

¶14

03/Dated: 16.02.2026

¶15

I.A. No. 12571 of 2024

¶16

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

2. This I.A. seeks condonation of delay of 144 days in instituting this Letters Patent Appeal. We have perused the averments in the I.A. and we are satisfied that this delay has been sufficiently explained.

¶18

3. Accordingly, we condone the delay and dispose of this I.A.

¶19

L.P.A. No. 144 of 2025

¶20

4. At the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up this L.P.A. for hearing after condoning the delay in its institution.

¶21

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent/ petitioner was made to work only on an ad hoc basis as a Superintending Engineer and after that, as In-charge Chief Engineer in the Water Resources Department at Deoghar, though he was holding the substantive post of Executive Engineer. He submitted that, in making such appointments, it was clarified that the respondent-petitioner would be entitled to the salary of his substantive post, i.e., Executive Engineer. He submitted that, having accepted such appointment/arrangement by appreciating its full consequences, it was not open to the respondentpetitioner to complain and demand salary on a larger scale than that otherwise payable to regularly promoted Superintending Engineers or Chief Engineers. He submitted that this aspect has not been properly

¶22

-1-

¶23

2026:JHHC:4357-DB

¶24

considered by the learned Single Judge; therefore, this Appeal ought to be allowed.

¶25

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Chanda Hembrom Vs. The State of Jharkhand, W.P.(S) No. 6618 of 2013 and submitted that the issue involved in the present Appeal was squarely decided therein. He also pointed out that this Court’s decision in Chanda Hembrom was not interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He also relied upon Jaldhar Mandal Vs. the State of Jharkhand & others, W.P.(S) No.1769 of 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge deciding the identical issue. He pointed out that, in fact, before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand agreed to extend the benefit of the higher pay scale after referring to the learned Single Judge’s decision in Chanda Hembrom (supra).

¶26

7. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 8. In this case, although the respondent/petitioner was holding the substantive post of Executive Engineer, there can be no dispute that he was required to work as a Superintending Engineer. After a few years, he was also appointed Chief Engineer. The respondent/petitioner continued in these positions for almost 10 years, and this is relevant because the respondent styled this arrangement as only some ad hoc arrangements.

¶27

9. The argument regarding the clause in the appointment orders that salary in the substantive post alone would be paid was considered and rejected in Chanda Hembrom (supra), which relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, AIR 1986 SC 1571 . Here, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the concept of adhesive contracts in the context of inequality of bargaining power.

¶28

10. In Chanda Hembrom (supra), the petitioner held the substantive post of Assistant Engineer, but was given charge of the post of Executive Engineer. He worked in this position for almost four years and then claimed the salary of the post of Executive Engineer. This was allowed by the learned Single Judge, and this decision was not interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶29

11. In the case of Jaldhar Mandal (Supra), following Chanda Hembrom (supra), relief was granted to the petitioner, who was similarly placed. In this case, para. 7 records that the respondent-State expressed

¶30

-2-

¶31

2026:JHHC:4357-DB

¶32

its agreement to extend the same benefit as was extended to Chanda Hembrom. Therefore, it is quite surprising that in the present matter, the State should appeal the learned Single Judge’s decision, which is no different from the decision in Jaldhar Mandal (supra).

¶33

12. In any event, the issue raised in this Appeal is squarely covered by the decision in Chanda Hembrom (supra). The State preferred L.P.A. No. 79 of 2022 against this decision, which was dismissed on 04.08.2022, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nos. 33637 of 2022 did not interfere.

¶34

13. For all the above reasons, we dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal without any order for costs.

¶35

14. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, do not survive and is disposed of.

¶36

(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)

¶37

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶38

February 16, 2026

¶39

N.A.F.R.