Allowed¶96

Dr Smita Kumari Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Jan 2026WPC/5172/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme; DACP; upgradation of scale; RIMS Ranchi; Tutor; Medical Officer; permanent absorption; confirmation after probation; withdrawal of Governing Body resolution; Agenda No.43.06(12); 52nd General Body Meeting; Article 14; discrimination; fixed tenure; L.P.A. No. 313 of 2021; L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017; W.P.(S) No. 4435 of 2009; W.P.(S) No. 5172 of 2019; Jharkhand High Court; Deepak Roshan

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to grant the upgradation of scales with effect from the dates the same fell due, pay the Petitioners all monetary benefits accruing therefrom, and complete the entire exercise within 12 weeks from receipt/production of a copy of the order; pending I.A.s closed. ¶96

Dr Smita Kumari Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶96

Issue for consideration

Whether Petitioner nos.1 to 6, permanent Tutors of RIMS, are entitled to the 1st and 2nd upgradation of scale under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 2011 and 2017 respectively. +3 more

¶23

Court's answer

Petitioner nos.1 to 6 are entitled to the 1st upgradation of scale under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 2011 and the 2nd upgradation of scale under the said scheme with effect from 2017, on completion of 06 and 12 years of service.

¶90

Ratio / Principle

Petitioner nos.7 and 8 are entitled to their 1st upgradation of scale under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 06 years from the date of their permanent appointment in the post of Medical Officer, with effect from October 2018.

¶93

Key takeaways

The withdrawal of the earlier Governing Body resolution in the 52nd meeting, on the advice of the Respondents' Retainer Counsel and wholly for the purpose of contesting the instant writ application, shows mala fide and mischief and is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.ratio¶85
Denial of DACP upgradation benefits to the present Petitioners while similarly situated other Tutors have been granted such benefits is discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶88

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Eight doctors of Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi sought upgradations under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme (introduced by Finance Department resolution dated 25.06.2015). Petitioner nos.1-6, appointed against permanent Tutor posts (2005-06) and confirmed after probation, were held entitled to the 1st upgradation w.e.f. 2011 and the 2nd w.e.f. 2017; Petitioner nos.7-8, initially fixed-tenure Tutors who were later permanently appointed and confirmed as Medical Officers (w.e.f. 29.10.2014 and 28.10.2014), were held entitled to the 1st upgradation w.e.f. October 2018. The Court held that the Respondents' withdrawal, in the 52nd General Body Meeting dated 11.10.2021 on their Retainer Counsel's advice, of the earlier in-principle resolution (Agenda No.43.06(12)) was mala fide, wholly illegal and unsustainable; denial of benefits granted to similarly situated Tutors violated Article 14. The common judgment in L.P.A. No. 313 of 2021 with L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017 (fixed-tenure appointees) was distinguished as inapplicable. Writ application allowed; benefits payable from due dates, exercise to be completed within 12 weeks.

¶1

2026:JHHC:934

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 5172 of 2019

¶4

Dr. Smita Kumari Gupta, aged about 52 years, wife of Dr. Niraj Kumar Jha, resident of Deputy Para, P.O.Kutchery Chowk, P.S. - Lalpur, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶5

Dr. Arvind Kumar, aged about 54 years, son of Late Madan Mohan Prasad, resident of Vibha Niketan, Behind P&T Colony, Burdwan Compound, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶6

Dr. Saurav Banerjee, aged about 46 years, son of Late Nepal Chandra Banerjee, resident of B3, Abhilasha Apartment, 11/A Purulia Road, P.O. Lalpur, P.S. Lower Bazar, District -Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶7

Dr. Satyabrata Patra, aged about 53 years, son of Late J. Patra, resident of ID, Sushama Palace, Matrika Ashram Road, Burdwan Compound, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶8

Dr. Kavita Topno, aged about 47 years, wife of Dr. Marshall Daud Kerketta, resident of 1/J4, Opposite Ranchi Science Centre, Chiraundi, PO- Boreya, P.S.Bariatu, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶9

Dr. Manisha Kujur, aged about 41 years, wife of Dr. Anuj Pankaj Xaxa, resident of Dibadih, Daudnagar, Near Lohardaga Railway Line, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶10

Dr. Abha Deepti Kerketta, aged about 46 years, wife of Abhay Gyan P. Kujur, resident of 19, Peace Road, Lalpur, PO- Lalpur, PS- Lalpur, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶11

Dr. Vijaya Gupta, aged about 41 years, wife of Dr. Amit Kumar, resident of Shivam Apartment, Flat No.303 'B', Kilburn Colony, Near Eyelx, Hinoo, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District - Ranchi

¶12

..… Petitioner (s)

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Jharkhand

¶15

Secretary, Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Directorate of Health, having its office at I.P.H. Building, Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶16

¶17

2026:JHHC:934

¶18

Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), PO-Bariatu, PS- Bariatu, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) ..... Respondent(s)

¶19

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶20

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, AAG-IV For the Resp.-RIMS : Dr. A.K.Singh, Adv

¶21

C.A.V. ON 04/12/2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 08/01/2026

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioners praying for a direction upon the Respondent authorities to immediately grant the 1^st and 2^nd upgradation of scale to the Petitioner nos.1 to 6 with effect from 2011 & 2017 respectively under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme and further prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to pay the benefits of upgradation of scale under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme to the Petitioner nos.7 and 8 with effect from 2018.

¶24

3. During pendency of the writ petition when the Respondents solely on the advice of their Retainer Counsel, chose to withdraw the earlier resolution of the Governing Body dated 11.10.2021; whereby the Respondents had in principle agreed to extend the benefits of the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme to the Petitioner nos.1 to 6 was withdrawn vide a fresh resolution dated

¶25

¶26

2026:JHHC:934

¶27

05.03.2024, the same was challenged by filing an Interlocutory Application seeking amendment of the reliefs which was allowed vide order dated 05.03.2024.

¶28

4. Brief Facts:-

¶29

(i) Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 were appointed pursuant to an advertisement, selection process and against the permanent post of Tutor in the respondents-Institution vide appointment letters, details of which are as under:-

¶30

Sn.	Name of the petitioner	Appointment Letter No.	Date of Issue	Date of Joining
1.	Dr. Smita Kumari Gupta	5123	23.08.2005	10.09.2005
2.	Dr. Arvind Kumar	5116	23.08.2005	29.08.2005
3.	Dr. Saurav Banerjee	5113	23.08.2005	01.10.2005
4.	Dr. Satyabrata Patra	93	10.01.2006	16.01.2006
5.	Dr. Kavita Topno	3672	23.06.2005	09.07.2005
6.	Dr. Manisha Kujur	3673	23.06.2005	04.07.2005

¶31

(ii) So far as Petitioner nos.7 and 8 are concerned,

¶32

they were initially appointed in the post of Tutor for a fixed tenure, but subsequently when the permanent vacancies of permanent Medical Officer were advertised, they applied against the said posts and on being selected, were offered appointment to the post of Medical Officers where they gave their joining on 29.10.2012.

¶33

¶34

2026:JHHC:934

¶35

(iii) The Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, vide resolution as contained in letter No.12/SDSEP(HES)-27/2015-1795/F dated 25.06.2015 introduced the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme under which an employee of a Medical College including Tutors/Residents/Senior Residents are entitled to 1^st upgradation of scale after 06 years of service and 2^nd upgradation of scale on 06 years of further service from the date of 1^st upgradation of scale i.e. on completion of 12 years of continuous service (Annexure 2).

¶36

(iv) The Respondents-Institution adopted the said scheme and under the Scheme, the Petitioner nos.1 to 6 became eligible for grant of 1^st upgradation of scale on completion of 06 years of service in the year 2011 and 2^nd upgradation of scale on completion of further 06 years i.e. with effect from 2017. So far as petitioner nos.7 and 8 are concerned, they were appointed in the year 2012 and, therefore, they became eligible for the 1^st upgradation of scale under Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from October 2018.

¶37

(v) The representation of the petitioners was duly placed before the Governing Body of RIMS, Ranchi in their 43^rd Meeting held on 14.12.2017 wherein at Agenda No.43.06(12), the Governing Body of RIMS in principle

¶38

¶39

2026:JHHC:934

¶40

approved the grant of upgradation of scale under Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme and further also resolved that the Petitioner nos.1 to 6 would be placed in regular higher post in consonance with their educational qualification and experience.

¶41

Despite such decision, when the benefits were not being extended, the petitioners made a representation before the respondents-authorities (Annexure 4) and ultimately having no alternative, moved before this Court.

¶42

5. The writ application was initially heard by this Court on 09.01.2020 and the Respondents were directed to file counter affidavit. Surprisingly, for the purpose of filing the counter affidavit, the Retainer Counsel of the Respondents advised the Respondents to withdraw the relevant part of the resolution of the Governing Body of RIMS in its 43^rd Meeting (Annexure 3) wherein the Respondents had in principle agreed to extend the benefits of upgradation of scale under DACP scheme to the Petitioners and the Respondents blindly by mentioning the same, withdrew the resolution as contained in Agenda No.43.06(12) in their 43^rd General Body Meeting in their 52^nd General Body Meeting held on 11.10.2021. The copy of the said Minutes of the Meeting has been brought on record by the Petitioners by filing a supplementary affidavit on

¶43

¶44

2026:JHHC:934

¶45

13.12.2021 as Annexure-5 and challenged by filing an amendment application.

¶46

6. It is also relevant to mention here that as the Respondents since the very inception were trying to defeat the legitimate claim of the Petitioner nos.1 to 6 by alleging that the Petitioners are holding tenure posts and not permanent posts and as such are not otherwise eligible for promotion; these Petitioners earlier moved this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4435 of 2009 claiming promotion to the post of Assistant Professor with effect from dates of entitlement. In the said writ application also, a specific plea was taken by the Respondents that the posts of Tutors are not permanent posts and are tenure posts. They have also taken a plea that the Petitioners are not permanent employees of RIMS.

¶47

This Court after hearing the parties framed a specific issue as to whether the Petitioners have been permanently absorbed as Tutors in the RIMS and are to be considered for promotion to the posts of Assistant Professors after rendering 03 years of service on the said posts as has been done in the case of similarly situated employees and replied the same in the following manners in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment. For brevity, the same is extracted herein below: -

¶48

¶49

2026:JHHC:934

¶50

“9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, the question which falls for determination is as to whether petitioners have been permanently absorbed as tutors in the RIMS, are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor after rendering three years of service on the said post as has been done in the case of similarly situated employees.

¶51

10. Indisputably, the conditions of service of the RIMS employees are governed by RIMS Act, 2002, RIMS Rules 2002 and RIMS Regulations 2014. All the petitioners are permanent employees of the RIMS and have been permanently absorbed on the post of tutors. In the meantime, they have been continuing on the post of tutors for more than one decade. There is also no denying of the fact that some of the similarly placed tutors have been promoted to the post of Assistant Professor after coming into force of the RIMS Act and Rules .”

¶52

7. The Petitioners by filing an Interlocutory Application, as has been mentioned hereinabove, challenged the portion of the resolution dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Governing Body in their 52^nd meeting; whereby the Agenda No.43.06(12) regarding grant of 1^st and 2^nd upgradation of scale under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme to the Petitioner nos.1 to 6 has been withdrawn.

¶53

Said amendment, as has been stated hereinabove, was allowed vide order dated 05.03.2024. It is only after the resolution passed in favour of Petitioner nos.1 to 6 regarding extension of benefit of Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme was withdrawn on the advice of

¶54

¶55

2026:JHHC:934

¶56

Retainer Counsel for the respondents in the 52^nd General Body Meeting held on 11.10.2021, the Respondents filed a counter affidavit wherein the respondents mainly took the following objections: -

¶57

(i) Decision of Governing Body of the RIMS in their 43^rd meeting dated 14.02.2017 with respect to grant of Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme was a mistake. (ii) Tutors/Senior Residents/Residents/Registrars are tenure posts for three years only and holders of those posts are not entitled to promotion.

¶58

8. In support of the contention, the Respondents have relied upon the common judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 313 of 2021 with L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017 dated 11.09.2023.

¶59

The Respondents thereafter filed a supplementary counter affidavit bringing on record residency scheme and certain documents showing framing of Senior Residency Scheme.

¶60

9. The contentions of the Respondents are wholly misconceived and misleading for the following reasons: -

¶61

(i) The plea as to whether the petitioners had been permanently employed or were appointed against a fixed tenure or not was duly considered by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4435 of 2009 (Annexure 6), wherein this Court had specifically held that all the Petitioners are permanent employees of RIMS and have been permanently

¶62

¶63

2026:JHHC:934

¶64

absorbed on the posts of Tutors. As the Petitioners were continuing in the posts of Tutors for more than one decade, they were directed to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Professors as was done in case of other Tutors.

¶65

The issue therefore as to whether the Petitioners were permanently appointed and absorbed in service against the posts of Tutors or not no longer remain res integra.

¶66

(ii) So far as the reliance of the Respondents on the judgment of this Court passed in L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017 and with L.P.A. No. 313 of 2021 is concerned; this Court is of the considered view that the same is not applicable, inasmuch as, the said cases related to such appointees who were appointed for a fixed tenure. The advertisement pursuant to which those writ petitioners were appointed, specifically mentioned that their appointment would be for a fixed period of three years. This apart, even the appointment letters issued to those employees specifically mentioned that such appointment is for a fixed tenure and it is on that context this Court held that

¶67

¶68

2026:JHHC:934

¶69

appointment was for a fixed tenure and they cannot be permanently absorbed.

¶70

Thus, the said judgment has absolutely no application in the instant case. Paragraph 49 of the said judgment records that offer of appointment in those cases were for three years only and the posts against which such appointments were made against those posts were tenure posts, unlike that of the present petitioners who were appointed against permanent posts and the petitioners on completion of their probation period were permanently absorbed in their services, which fact shall become further apparent from the rejoinder filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavit wherein firstly the petitioners highlighted the pick & choose method adopted by the respondents-authorities wherein the respondents-authorities on one hand extended benefits of Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme to other Tutors appointed in their Institution, but discriminated the petitioners. As for instance, in Annexure-7 series at Serial No. 27, one Dr. Roseline Toppo was granted

¶71

¶72

2026:JHHC:934

¶73

upgradation of scale under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme, though she was a Tutor in the FMT Department.

¶74

(iii) The petitioners also brought on record the Office Orders; whereby the services of the petitioners were confirmed on completion of probation period vide Memo No.1017 dated 25.07.2011 (Annexure 8); whereby names of petitioner nos.1 to 6 are appearing at Serial Nos. 5, 4, 6, 7, 11 and 15 respectively and their services have been confirmed with effect from 10.09.2007, 29.08.2007, 01.10.2007, 16.01.2008, 09.07.2007 and 04.07.2007

¶75

respectively.

¶76

Similarly, vide Memo No.3401 dated 29.05.2015, the services of petitioner no.7 have been confirmed on completion of probation period with effect from 29.10.2014 and vide Memo No. 3923 dated 12.10.2020, the services of petitioner no.8 were confirmed against post of Medical Officer with effect from 28.10.2014.

¶77

(iv) Under such circumstances, the pleas of the respondents are not only unsustainable in the eyes of law, but such plea appears to have been

¶78

¶79

2026:JHHC:934

¶80

taken only with an intent to somehow deprive the petitioners of their legitimate claims.

¶81

10. In view of the facts stated hereinabove, following facts get established: -

¶82

(i) Petitioner nos.1 to 6 were appointed against permanent vacancies and on completion of probation period, their services have been permanently observed which facts find mentioned in the judgment of this Court dated 28.09.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4435 of 2009.

¶83

(ii) The General Body after considering all aspects of the matter decided in principle to give the benefit of upgradation of scale to the Petitioner nos.1 to 6 in their 43^rd meeting held on 14.02.2017.

¶84

(iii) Withdrawal of the said resolution in the subsequent meeting (52^nd Meeting of the General Body) on the advice of their retainer lawyer as finds mentioned in the resolution itself shows the mala fide and mischief in the mind of the respondentsauthorities.

¶85

(iv) Such withdrawal of the previous resolution being wholly for the purpose of contesting the instant writ application is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶86

¶87

2026:JHHC:934

¶88

(v) When similarly situated other Tutors have been granted benefits of upgradation of scale under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme, denial of the same to the present petitioners would be discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶89

(vi) So far as petitioner nos.7 and 8 are concerned; though they were initially appointed as Tutors for fixed tenures, but realizing the uncertainty in their services, they applied for permanent posts of Medical Officers as and when advertised and on being selected were appointed permanently against the posts of Medical Officers and on completion of period of probation, their services were duly confirmed with effect from 29.10.2014 and 28.10.2014 respectively.

¶90

11. Having regard to aforesaid discussions, this Court holds that the Petitioner nos.1 to 6 are entitled to the grant of 1^st and 2^nd upgradation of scale on completion of 06 and 12 years of service i.e. Petitioner nos.1 to 6 are entitled to grant of 1^st upgradation of scale under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 2011 and 2^nd upgradation of scale under the said scheme with effect from 2017.

¶91

¶92

2026:JHHC:934

¶93

Similarly, Petitioner nos.7 and 8 are entitled to their 1^st upgradation of scale under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 06 years from the date of their permanent appointment in the post of Medical Officer with effect from October 2018.

¶94

12. The Respondents are hereby directed to grant the benefit of the upgradation of scales with effect from the date, the same fell due to the Petitioners and pay the Petitioners all monetary benefits accruing therefrom.

¶95

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶96

13. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands closed.

¶97

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶98

Dated: 08 /01/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R

¶99

Uploaded

¶100

08/01/2026

¶101

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether Petitioner nos.1 to 6, permanent Tutors of RIMS, are entitled to the 1st and 2nd upgradation of scale under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 2011 and 2017 respectively.¶23
The court held
Petitioner nos.1 to 6 are entitled to the 1st upgradation of scale under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 2011 and the 2nd upgradation of scale under the said scheme with effect from 2017, on completion of 06 and 12 years of service.ratio¶90
2.
Whether Petitioner nos.7 and 8 are entitled to the benefit of upgradation of scale under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 2018.¶23
The court held
Petitioner nos.7 and 8 are entitled to their 1st upgradation of scale under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 06 years from the date of their permanent appointment in the post of Medical Officer, with effect from October 2018.ratio¶93
3.
Whether the withdrawal by the Respondents, in the 52nd General Body Meeting dated 11.10.2021, of the Governing Body resolution (Agenda No.43.06(12)) granting DACP upgradation benefits to Petitioner nos.1 to 6 was valid.¶52
The court held
The withdrawal of the earlier Governing Body resolution in the 52nd meeting, on the advice of the Respondents' Retainer Counsel and wholly for the purpose of contesting the instant writ application, shows mala fide and mischief and is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.ratio¶85
4.
Whether the judgment in L.P.A. No. 313 of 2021 with L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017, concerning fixed-tenure appointees, applies to the present Petitioners so as to defeat their claim.¶66
The court held
The judgment in L.P.A. No. 313 of 2021 with L.P.A. No. 615 of 2017 has absolutely no application in the instant case, since those appointees were engaged for a fixed tenure of three years against tenure posts, unlike the present Petitioners who were appointed against permanent posts and permanently absorbed on completion of probation.ratio¶70

Dr Smita Kumari Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Smita Kumari Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nand Deo Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Birendra Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shardanand Prasad Vs the Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Management of Usha Martin Ltd. through Its Senior Manager (Legal),Manas Verma Vs Dharmendra Kumar

Amrendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand