Sayeed Begum wife of late Sheikh Jail Ahmad Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

¶1

2026:JHHC:4088

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (S) No. 3003 of 2012

¶4

Sayeeda Begum wife of Late Seikh Jalil Ahmad,

¶5

Mohammed Tarique Shakil, Son of Late Seikh Jalil Ahmad Residence of House No.-6A, Road No.-7, Azadnagar, Near Bharat Bekary, P.O.-Azadnagar, P.S.-Mango, District-East Singhbhum. ...... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Jharkhand.

¶8

Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Department, Telephone Bhawan, Po & PS- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.

¶9

Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Department, Telephone Bhawan, Po & PS- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.

¶10

Regional Dy. Director of Education, Kolhan Pramandal PO & PSChaibasa, District- West Singhbhum.

¶11

District Education Officer, West Singhbhum PO &PS- Chaibasa, District- West Singhbhum. ..... Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Subodh Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, G.P.-III

¶15

18/Dated:-13.02.2026

¶16

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

2. The instant writ application was initially preferred by one-Seikh Jalil Ahmad, however, during pendency of this writ application, the original petitioner died and he was substituted by his widow and his legal heir and now, they are the present petitioners.

¶18

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-3 which is the reasoned order which was passed pursuant to the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4262 of 2003 .

¶19

4. By indicating the reasoned order (Annexure-3), learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards paragraph No.2

¶20

1

¶21

2026:JHHC:4088

¶22

which deals with the petitioner as well as his co-employee namelyFariduddin Ahmad. He further submits that Fariduddin Ahmad had filed a separate writ application being W.P.(S) 825 of 2012 which was allowed. Thereafter, the State challenged the said order passed by the Writ Court before the Appellate Court and after being unsuccessful, the State also assailed before the Hon’ble Apex Court, however, the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.825 of 2012 was held to be valid up-till the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the letter dated 04.08.2009, which is impugned herein, was quashed in the said case and it was held that the petitioner is entitled for salary of Headmaster from the date of his entitlement i.e. on completion of seven years as Headmaster.

¶23

5. Relying upon the aforesaid facts that since the impugned order has already been quashed and the benefits pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the case of coemployee namely-Fariduddin Ahmad, the entire benefits has already been given to the legal heirs of that petitioner; as such, the present petitioners are also entitled for all the benefits what has been given to the respective legal heirs of Fariduddin Ahmad, who is also now no more.

¶24

6. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that the impugned order contains the name of two persons and admittedly, the said impugned order is quashed and set aside vide order passed in W.P. (S) No. 825 of 2012 wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:

2

2026:JHHC:4088

“......

In the result this writ petition is allowed and consequently, the letter dated 4.8.2009 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled for salary of Headmaster from the date of his entitlement i.e. on completion of seven years as Headmaster.”

¶29

7. Having regard to the aforesaid scenario, there is no reason why not the present petitioners would be entitled for all consequential benefits, what was supposed to be accrued in favour of the original petitioner who is now no more; accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed and this Court holds that since the letter dated 04.08.2009 is already quashed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 825 of 2012 and the order of the learned Single Judge has been upheld up-till Hon’ble Supreme Court, as informed by learned counsel for both the parties, there was no reason not to give the benefits what has been given to the coemployee; accordingly, it is held that the original petitioner was entitled for salary of Headmaster from the date of his entitlement i.e. on completion of seven years as Headmaster.

¶30

8. As the original petitioner is no more, accordingly, the respondents are directed to quantify the monetary benefit and pay the same to the present petitioners who are the legal heirs. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks.

¶31

9. Before parting, it is necessary to observe that this is a fit case where cost should be imposed upon the Respondents for the simple reason that the reasoned order contained two names and the respondents have already given entire benefit to the person whose case was upheld up-till the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but denied the same benefit to the poor widow, whose husband is

3

2026:JHHC:4088

no more.

However, with a word of warning to the respondents, it is made clear that if the entire benefit is not paid within the aforesaid stipulated period, the Respondents should also be liable for payment of interest at the rate of 7% per annum with quarterly rest.

¶36

10. With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.

¶37

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶38

February 13, 2026 vikas/uploaded 12.03.2026

¶39

4

Sayeed Begum wife of late Sheikh Jail Ahmad v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayeed Begum wife of late Sheikh Jail Ahmad v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nayesa Bibi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sonamati Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shagupta Perween And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Trilochan Mahakur And Ors. Vs Jharkhand State Mineral Develo