Dismissed

Rakesh Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary R. K. Mahajan, Department Of Education, Governme

Patna HC2 Jan 2019MJC/972/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application, the Patna High Court held that it cannot scrutinize the correctness of a reasoned order rejecting compassionate appointment under its contempt jurisdiction. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for discrimination but disposed of the MPLJ application.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to highlight discrimination in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment.

Rakesh Ranjan Vs The State Of Bihar Through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.972 of 2018 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11554 of 2017

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Rakesh Ranjan, Son of Late Ram Naresh Sharma, Resident of VillageMahangupur, Post- Chiraura, P.S.- Janipur, in the district of Patna at present resident of Phulwarisharif, Police Station- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

Mr. Kumar Ravi, the District Magistrate-cum-the Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Patna.

¶9

Mr. Keshav Prasad Singh, the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna.

¶10

Mr. Jyoti Kumar, the District Education Officer, Patna.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

======================================================

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Prakash Verma For the Respondent/s : Mr.Mrs. Silpa Singh - GA 12

¶14

======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-01-2019

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶17

Manifold submissions have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner to contend that opposite parties have committed gross contempt. Learned counsel submitted that the order of the Writ Court was not carried out in its letter and spirit. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mukesh & Another vs The State of Bihar & Others [SLP (C) Nos. 31158-31159 of 2013], he submits that while disposing of the case the Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioners that they may approach the

¶18

Patna High Court MJC No.972 of 2018 dt.02-01-2019 2/5

¶19

State Government for suitable relief in terms of the order passed in SLP(C) No. 29655 of 2010.

¶20

It is to be noted here that SLP (C) No. 29655 of 2010 was withdrawn by the State on the understanding that they will consider the case of those who were party in the judgment of the Full Bench. After the decision in the case of Mukesh & Another the opposite parties have issued order as contained in Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶21

lafpdk la0&7@eq04&17@2017------------------@iVuk fnukad & ----------------------------------------- ;g vkns”k ,l0 ,y0 ih0 ¼lh0½ la0 & 31158&31159@2013 ls vn~Hkwr flfoy vihy la0&4776&4777@2017 eqds”k ,oa vU; cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU; esa fnukad&03-04-2017 dks ikfjr vkns”k ds vkyksd esa ikfjr fd;k tk jgk gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds vkns”k dk izHkkoh va”k fuEuor gS %&

¶22

“…..We direct that the Appellants who were recommended for appointment to class III or class IV posts prior to 01.07.2006 will either be appointed on class III or class IV posts on regular basis or will be entitled for continuance as Teacher on a regular pay Scale. The other Appellants who were appointed after 01.07.2006 will not be entitled for the relief of regular pay Scales. However, we grant them liberty to approach the State Government for suitable relief in terms of the order passed in SLP (C) No. 29655 of 2010.”

¶23

ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; ds mi;qZDr vkns”k ds vkyksd eas fuEufyf[kr funs”k fn;s tkrsa gSa %&

¶24

Patna High Court MJC No.972 of 2018 dt.02-01-2019

¶25

3/5

¶26

1- ;fn l{ke vuqdEik lfefr }kjk fnukad & 01-07-2006 ds iwoZ e`r ljdkjh f”k{kd ds vkfJr dks oxZ III ,oa IV ds in ij vFkok f”k{kd ds in ij vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr gsrq vuq”kalk dh x;h gks rks vH;FkhZ dh fu;qfDr l{ke vuqdEik lfefr }kjk vuq”kaflr in ij fu;fer :i ls fu;fer osrueku ij dh tk;sxhA

¶27

2- mDr vkns”k ds vkyksd esa vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij f”k{kd ds fu;fer in ,oa fu;fer osrueku ij fu;qfDr] miyC/k

¶28

fjfDr ds fo:} gh dh tk ldsxhA

¶29

3-- mDr vkns”k lanfHkZr okn ,oa layXu okn ds okfn;ksa ds ekeys esa gh izHkkoh gksxkA

¶30

bl ij foHkkxh; ea=h dk vuqeksnu izkIr gSA

¶31

¼fouksn dqekj flag½ fo”ks’k lfpoA

¶32

Kkikad &7@eq0 4 & 17@2017-------------------@iVuk] fnukad & ------------@

¶33

izfrfyfi %& lHkh ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh@ lHkh ftyk dk;ZØe inkf/kdkjh ¼LFkkiuk½ dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko”;d dkjZokbZ gsrq izsf’krA

¶34

Kkikad& 7@eq04&17@2017 38 @ iVuk] fnukad& 12@01@18@ izfrfyfi %& vkbZ0 Vh0 eSustj] f”k{kk foHkkx dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko”;d dkjZokbZ gsrq izsf’krA

¶35

Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that

¶36

the opposite parties have arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner. Although the father of the petitioner died in harness before 01.07.2006 yet his case was not considered in the light of

¶37

Patna High Court MJC No.972 of 2018 dt.02-01-2019 4/5

¶38

the judgment in the case of Mukesh & Another and the order contained in Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018. He further submits that similar issue was considered by the Division Bench and the Division Bench held out that the cut-off date 01.07.2006 is applicable to all such cases where the death occurred prior to 01.07.2006 and not applicable to only those where the recommendation was prior to 01.07.2006. He further submits that opposite parties have adopted pick and choose basis and deprived the petitioner. While considering the case of similarly circumstanced persons they have granted the benefit but denied the same to the petitioner. He also submits that decision of the opposite parties has been taken on extraneous consideration.

¶39

The aforesaid submissions are valid submission but deciding the correctness and otherwise of the decision is within the jurisdiction of a writ proceeding. While exercising contempt jurisdiction the Court is required to examine the case within the framework of the direction issued by the Writ Court. Wrong compliance is not the subject of this Court for scrutiny sitting in contempt jurisdiction. Since the opposite parties have already taken a decision rejecting the claim of the petitioner by a reasoned order, whether the reasons are good or bad cannot be scrutinized in contempt proceeding.

¶40

Patna High Court MJC No.972 of 2018 dt.02-01-2019

¶41

5/5

¶42

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant any further indulgence in the matter. However, liberty shall be available to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum or court to highlight the discrimination adopted by the opposite parties in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment.

¶43

With the aforesaid, this MJC application stands disposed

¶44

of.

¶45

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)

¶46

mrl./-

¶47

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N.A.
Uploading Date	05.01.2019
Transmission Date	N.A.

Rakesh Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary R. K. Mahajan, Department Of Education, Governme

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary R. K. Mahajan, Department Of Education, Governme

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aurangjeb Kuraishi and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Binay Kr. Mishra @ Binay Mishra and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Baliram Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Rana Pratap Singh Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Govt. Of Bihar, P

Harishchandra Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Chhavinath Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.