Raj Shekhar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:9602

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 6642 of 2019

Raj Shekhar Jha, Aged about 63 Years, Retire Fisheries Extension Officer, Son of Late Bhubneshwar Jha, Resident of Bhagabandh, Post Office & Police Station–Jarmundi, District-Dumka, Jharkhand.

¶5

...... Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Co-operative and Fisheries Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi, Post Office & Police Station-Doranda, District-Ranchi.

¶9

The Director of Fisheries, Ranchi, Fish Farm, Doranda, Ranchi, Post Office & Police Station-Doranda, District-Ranchi.

¶10

..... Respondent(s)

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, Advocate Mr. Anup Kr. Yadav, Advocate

¶14

For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Sweta Shukla, A.C. to AAG-II

¶15

11/Dated:-06.04.2026

¶16

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the

¶18

petitioner praying therein for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of the deducted amount of salary amounting Rs.2,31,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh Thirty-One Thousand) to the petitioner which was already deducted by the respondents from the salary of the petitioner in 21 installments in each month being Rs.11,000/- (Rs. Eleven Thousand) and also to make payment of 18% interest per annum on the said amount and further directing them to give the three increments to the petitioner, which was stopped by the Respondents by Memo No.1053 dated 30/07/2011 and accordingly to make payment the arrears of salary and other consequential benefits thereon.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of

¶20

1

¶21

2026:JHHC:9602 this Court towards Annexure-3 which is the order passed in the case of petitioner in the earlier round of litigation being W.P.(S) No.734 of 2012 wherein the impugned order of punishment with regard to stoppage of three increments amongst other punishments, has been quashed and set aside, however, liberty was reserved with the authorities to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

¶22

4. It has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that order passed in W.P.(S) No.734 of 2012 dated 28.02.2019 was assailed by the respondent-State before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2020, but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 04.03.2024.

¶23

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records of the case it appears that though the punishment order dated 30.07.2011 was quashed and set aside, however, the matter was remitted to the authorities and liberty was reserved with the authorities if they find any evidence against the petitioner, they can proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

¶24

6. For brevity, the relevant portion of the order dated 28.02.2019 passed in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.(S) No. 734 of 2012 is extracted hereinbelow:

¶25

“In view of above facts, the impugned order of punishment dated 30.07.2014 is, hereby, quashed. The matter is remanded to the authorities. Liberty is reserved with authorities if they find any evidence against the petitioner, they can proceed in the matter in accordance with law. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.”

¶26

[In the above quotation, 30.07.2014 was a typographical error and was modified vide order dated 08.07.2019 which is to be read as 30.07.2011]

¶27

7. Also, after going through the order dated 04.03.3024

¶28

2

¶29

2026:JHHC:9602

¶30

passed in L.P.A. No.340 of 2020, it is evident that the same was dismissed without any observation.

¶31

8. It has been informed by learned counsel for the State that after disposal of appeal being L.P.A. No.340 of 2020, the authorities are proceeding in the matter. However, looking to the fact that the petitioner has already retired in the year 2017; as such, any order which is to be passed in the remand proceeding must be passed within a period of 8 weeks from today; failing which, the remand proceedings would be deemed to be null and void and in that event, the entire consequential benefits be paid to the petitioner within a further period of 2 weeks.

¶32

9. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.

¶33

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶34

APRIL 06, 2026 vikas/uploaded 20/04/2026

¶35

3

Raj Shekhar Jha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Shekhar Jha 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Ram Alias Ravi Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjeev Kumar Baraik Alias Sanju Kumar Baraik Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sri Badri Narayan Pandey Vs the Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway

Manju Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Shashi Ranjan Trivedi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Deptt of Agriculture

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary