The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department (School v. Education and Literacy Department), Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 1. Md. Fariduddin 2. Md. Sultan Mahmood 3. Sheikh Kurallee 4. Md. Sharif 5. Shekh Haidar Ali 6. Md. Amir Jhan Azad 7. Md. Zahiruddin 8. Md. Fazrul Rahman 9. Md. Ibrahim 10. Md. Abdul Hamid 11. Zeyaur Rahman 12. Md. Jamshed Ali W.P.(S). No. 1643 of 2023 ---------- ………… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Director, School Education and Literacy Department (Directorate of Secondary Education), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. The District Education Officer, Godda. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 6470 of 2022 1. Md. Ejabul Haque 2. Yasin Ansari 3. Md. Neamatullah 4. Md. Ibrahim 5. Md. Farid Ahmad 6. Md. Ekramul Haque 7. Md. Faizuddin Sheikh 8. Md. Haider Ali 9. Md. Mujeerudin ………… Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department (School Versus Education and Literacy Department), Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Additional Secretary, Human Resources Development Department (School Education and Literacy Department), Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Director (Secondary Education), School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi. ……….. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1647 of 2023 1. Md. Shafique Alam 2. Md. Usman Ghani 3. Sheikh Nasiruddin 4. Md. Mazhar Alam 5. Md. Alauddin 1 Versus ………… Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Director, School Education and Literacy Department (Directorate of Secondary Education), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. The District Education Officer, Godda. ……….. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1696 of 2023 1. Md. Khalilur Rahman 2. Md. Fazlur Rahman 3. Md. Noman 4. Md. Zahiruddin 5. Md. Mahfooz Ali 6. Md. Sharfuddin 7. Md. Najmuddin 8. Md. Zahiruddin 9. Md. Shamim 10. Md. Shahadat Husain 11. Md. Safur Alam 12. Md. Salimuddin 13. Md. Tahir Husain 14. Md. Yunus 15. Abdus Samad 16. Md. Abbas Ali 17. Md. Sabir Ahmad Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, ……….. Petitioners Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Director, School Education and Literacy Department (Directorate of Secondary Education), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. The District Education Officer, Godda. ……….. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1600 of 2023 1. Md. Shamim Anwar 2. Md. Alamgeer 3. Md. Sultan Ahmad 4. Md. Shamsul Haque 5. Md. Nasiruddin 6. Md. Maqusood 7. Md. Jamaluddin 8. Md. Moiuddin 2 9. Md. Abdul Quaiyoom 10. Sk. Shamsul 11. Md. Maniruddin 12. Md. Samiruddin 13. Nazir Ahmad Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, ……….. Petitioners Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Director, School Education and Literacy Department (Directorate of Secondary Education), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. The District Education Officer, Godda. ……….. Respondents with W.P.(S). No. 547 of 2023 1. Md. Dabiruddin Ansari 2. Md. Afajuddin Ansari 3. Md. Abdul Aziz 4. Md. Belal Ahmad 5. Md. Salim 6. Md. Ainul Haque 7. Md. Soibur Haque 8. Md. Subuktagin 9. Md. Jalaluddin 10. Majharul Ansari 11. Serajul Haque Ansari ……….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Director, School Education and Literacy Department (Directorate of Secondary Education), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. The District Education Officer, Godda. 6. The District Education Officer, Dumka. ……….. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner s For the Resp.
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Ms. Nidhi Kumari, Advocate Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate Ms. Shatakshi, Advocate : Md. Shahabuddin, SC-VII Mr. Ravi Kerketta, Advocate M/s. Shubham Gautam, Suraj Prakash, Priti Priyamvada, Piyush Anand, ACs 3 15/ 13.06.2024 Heard the parties. ---------- 2. Since, the issues involved in all these writ petitions are similar and identical and as such they have been tagged together and are being
Decision
disposed of by this common order. 3. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon to grant the benefits of ‘Pension and Gratuity’ to all the petitioners, who have retired after 24.10.2014. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 732 of 2018 (Satya Narayan Tiwary & Anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases and this Court after hearing the parties vide its order dated 17.05.2024, allowed the said writ petitions with the following directions: “30. It is also not in dispute that the resolution no. 2020 dated 24.10.2014 came after the retirement of the petitioners. When prior to retirement, they were convinced that they will be getting the retiral benefits in view of the Resolution dated 24.10.2014 and they were made to retire at the age of 60 years i.e. prior to their actual date of retirement at the age of 62 years before coming into force of Resolution dated 24.10.2022, the impugned resolution dated 1773 dated 21.06.2018 cannot be given effect to which affects the legitimate expectation of the employees and, thus, the protectable interest of the employees comes to rescue. Inference can be drawn that in view of legitimate expectation and protectable interest of the employees, the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside, as the same is not tenable in the eye of law. 31. In view of the discussions made above, this Court holds the earlier Resolution No. 2020 dated 24.10.2014 was a conscious decision of the State Government and the same was issued in accordance with law, whereas the impugned Resolution No. 1773 dated 21.06.2018 illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Hence, the Resolution No. 1773 dated 21.06.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners are entitled for pensionery benefits and gratuity. The respondents are required to calculate the pensionery benefits including gratuity as well as consequential benefits and the same be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from today.” is absolutely that 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since similar issues have already been decided by this Court, present petitioners are also entitled for the similar benefits, what has been extended to the petitioners of W.P.(S). No. 732 of 2018 (Satya Narayan Tiwary & Anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has no objection to the same. 7. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of in terms of the order dated 17.05.2024, passed by this Court in case of in W.P.(S). No. 732 of 2018 (Satya Narayan Tiwary & Anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases and if the cases of the present petitioners are found to be same and similar to the cases of the petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 732 of 2018 (Satya Narayan Tiwary & Anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits. 8. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to verify the factual aspects/issues involved in the present writ petitions vis-à-vis factual aspects/issues involved in W.P.(S). No. 732 of 2018 (Satya Narayan Tiwary & Anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases, and if the facts/issues involved in the present writ petitions are found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petitions, the same benefits may be extended to the present petitioners also in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 9. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Kunal (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 5