Dr Shekhar Kumar Vs Panchaitee Raj

2026:JHHC:6345

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S). No. 7867 of 2013

Mamta Kumar, w/o. Shekhar Kumar @ Dr. Shekhar Kumar, resident of Housing Colony, MIG-A/5, Housing Board Colony, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad (Sadar), District Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶6

…… Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj and NREP (Special Division) Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnnathpur, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶9

Zila Parishad, Jharkhand represented through its Chairman (Adhyaksha), Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶10

The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad (Sadar), District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

¶11

…… Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Niranjan Singh, Advocate Md. Hatim, Advocate

¶16

19/ 25.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

2. Though the writ application has been filed by Dr. Shekhar Kumar, however, during the pendency of the writ application the original petitioner has died and, in his place, his legal heir/widow namely, Mamta Kumar has been substituted pursuant to the order dated 28.09.2018, passed in I.A. No. 7504 of 2018.

¶18

3. By way of present writ application, the original petitioner has prayed for quashing of the letter dated 07.11.2013, issued by the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj and NREP (Special Division) Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi; whereby the said respondent has rejected the representation of the petitioner.

¶19

Original-Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the

¶20

respondents to implement the decision of the Government of

¶21

1

¶22

2026:JHHC:6345

¶23

Jharkhand by virtue of resolution dated 23.07.2011, enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 years to 65 years in respect of all the employees of the cadre of health services (Allopathic) in terms of petitioner’s entitlement in accordance with the rules governing his service condition.

¶24

4. During the pendency of the writ application one I.A. No. 9630 of 2017 was filed praying therein for certain amendment in the original writ application, inasmuch as, during the pendency of the writ application, the original-petitioner has now attained the age of superannuation and even if, the age of superannuation is enhanced from 60 years to 65 years by the intervention of this Court, then also the petitioner stands retired w.e.f. 30.04.2017. This Court vide order dated 28.01.2019 allowed the said I.A. and directed that the same shall form part of the main writ application.

¶25

5. The facts of the case as delineated in the writ application is that the original petitioner was employed as Medical Officer under Zila Parishad. The service conditions of the employees of Zila Parishad and the Panchayat Samiti are same as that of the employees of the State Government, except payment of pension after retirement.

¶26

On that basis, the age of retirement of the employees of the Zila Parishad was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years, when there was such enhancement in the age of retirement of the Government employees. As a matter of fact, the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Jharkhand had issued Memo No. 174 dated 5.2.2011 communicating the said resolution of the Government. On that basis, the age of superannuation of the employees of Zila Parishad was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years.

¶27

6. Subsequently, the age of retirement of the Medical Officers of the State Government has been enhanced from 60 years to 65 years by Resolution No. 7A-8-05-2008-283 (7A), Ranchi dated 23.7.2011, issued by the Special Secretary to the Government, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department.

¶28

2

¶29

2026:JHHC:6345

¶30

The original-petitioner, who was the Medical Officer under Zila Parishad, being entitled for the same benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 60 years to 65 years, filed representation for issuing an order for enhancement of age of retirement from 60 years to 65 years, but in spite of representation and repeated requests, no order had been passed. Hence, the original-petitioner preferred W.P.(S). No. 1305 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 18.07.2013, directing the respondents to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the respondents have issued letter dated 17.10.2013 rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

¶31

Hence, this writ application has been filed challenging the letter dated 17.10.2013.

¶32

7. The main stand in the order impugned dated 17.10.2013 is that since employees of Zila Parishad is not the employee of State Govt., the benefit of age enhancement from 60 years to 65 years will not be applicable in the case of original-petitioner.

¶33

8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue with regard to enhancement of age in case of Zila Parishad on basis of resolution dated 26.10.2004 from 58 years to 60 years was considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S). No. 5443 of 2005 and other analogous cases and the Coordinate Bench of this Court after referring several judgments has held that the resolution taken by the Government vide memo No. 5826 dated 26.10.2004 for enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, shall also apply in case of the employees of Zila Parishad and this Court held that the age superannuation of the employees of Zila Parishad would be 60 years.

¶34

9. The said order passed by the Writ Court was challenged by the State in L.P.A. No. 172 of 2006 vide L.P.A. No. 186 of 2006 and the Division Bench of this Court did not interfere with the order

¶35

3

¶36

2026:JHHC:6345

¶37

passed by the Writ Court. Thereafter, the State assailed the order passed by the Writ Court as well as the Appellate Court before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No. 3881 of 2007 and the Appeal filed by the State was also dismissed.

¶38

10. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the issue with regard to enhancement of age from 58 years to 60 years has been considered to be applicable in the case of employees of Zila Parishad also; now taking a stand that since the employees of Zila Parishad are not the employees of State Government, does not have any legs to stand in the eyes of law.

¶39

11. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the prayer of the petitioner and relies upon the counter-affidavit; however, on a specific query that when the issue with regard to enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years was settled up to the Hon’ble Apex Court, then why Zila Parishad is not considering the age of superannuation of Doctors working under Zila Parishad from 60 years to 65 years, which has been given to the Doctors of State Government in light of Resolution No. 7A-8-05-2008-283 (7A), Ranchi dated 23.7.2011, issued by the Special Secretary to the Government, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department.

¶40

Ld. Counsel for the respondents is not able to satisfy the Court

¶41

on this point.

¶42

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the order impugned, it appears that the claim of the original-petitioner for enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 years to 65 years has been rejected solely on the ground that the resolution dated 23.07.2011 is applicable only to the State Government’s employees; whereby the age of Allopathic Doctors of the State Government has been enhanced from 60 years to 65 years and since the original-petitioner was not an employee of

¶43

4

¶44

2026:JHHC:6345

¶45

State Government, as such, he is not entitled for enhancement of age of superannuation.

¶46

13. This stand of the respondents in the impugned order does not make any sense because in the same and similar situation when a resolution was issued in 2004 with regard to enhancement of age of Allopathic Doctors from 58 years to 60 years, many people approached this Court for the same and similar relief and the issue was settled by holding that the said resolution of State Government with regard to enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years dated 26.10.2004 would be applicable in the case of employees of Zila Parishad also; then why not the State Government, after knowing fully well that the judgment passed by this Court was upheld up to the Hon’ble Apex Court, has taken into consideration the same.

¶47

14. When in the 1^st round of litigation, the original-petitioner knocked the door of this Court, it was the duty of the State to look into the matter in detail; however, just in cursory manner the impugned order has been passed, by taking reference of one Departmental Resolution of 2011.

¶48

15. Here it is not the case whether departmental resolution will be applicable or not; rather here the case is that when in the similar situation, when the age was enhanced in the case of Allopathic Doctors employed under the State Government from 58 to 60 years, this Court held that Doctors of Zila Parishad would also get the benefit of said resolution; thus, this Court is of the considered view that there is no fun in not accepting the Departmental Resolution of 2011 in the case of the original-petitioner, who was employed in Zila Parishad, because the issue with regard to applicability of the resolution of the State Government, especially with respect to enhancement of age of superannuation has been held to be applicable to the employees of Zila Parishad also.

¶49

5

¶50

2026:JHHC:6345

¶51

16. Accordingly, I hold that the impugned order is bad in law and accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside.

¶52

17. Since the original petitioner has died and there is no scheme of giving pensionary benefits in Zila Parishad. In such situation, this Court holds that the original-petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits considering the service of original petitioner from 60 years to 65 years, as in the case of Allopathic Doctors in the State of Jharkhand; however, he would be paid 50% of the back wages only for the intervening period because certainly, on the one hand it was the fault of State Government for not taking the work from the original petitioner; at the same time, there is no averment in the writ petition that the original petitioner, has not worked anywhere after retirement.

¶53

18. In that view of the matter, interest of justice would be sufficed by giving 50% of the back wages/ salary, considering the original petitioner on job till he has attained the age of 65 years and further calculate and pay the entire emoluments/ monetary benefits to the present petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

¶54

19. The writ application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶55

20. Pending I.A(s)., if any, stands closed.

¶56

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶57

25^th February, 2026

¶58

Kunal/- NAFR/ AFR Uploaded on 11.03.2026

¶59

6

Dr Shekhar Kumar v. Panchaitee Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Shekhar Kumar v. Panchaitee Raj

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Moran Singh Leyangi Alias Moran Singh Liyangi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanat Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Kumar Alias Suresh Yadava Alias Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Mohammad Asif Alias Mohd . Asif Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Oraon @ Sumit Oraon @ Sunit Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand