The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2397 of 2023 -------- Ravindra Baraik, aged about 37 yrs. Old, S/o Harinandan Baraik, resident of Village-Roytoli, P.O.- State- Lapung, .......Petitioner Jharkhand. District-Ranchi, P.S.-Lapung, Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand represented by the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, State-Jharkhand; 2. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative having its office at Nepal House, P.S.-Doranda, P.O.-Doranda, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand; 3. The Director, Agriculture, State of Jharkhand having its office at Agriculture Bhawan, Kanke Road, P.O.-Kanke Road, P.S.-Gonda, District- .......Respondents Ranchi, State-Jharkhand. With W.P. (S) No. 2253 of 2023 -------- 1. Gajendra Kumar Singh, aged about 41 years, Son of Sri Tribeni Singh, Resident at Professor Colony, New Barganda, P.O.- New Barganda, P.S.-Giridih (T), District-Giridih; 2. Anand Mohan, aged about 33 years, son of Late Digambar Trivedi, Resident of Village-Chatro, P.O.- Chatro, P.S.-Deori, District-Giridih, Jharkhand, Pin Code-815301; 3. Rahul Prasad Gupta, aged about 39 years, Son of Arjun Prasad Gupta, Resident of Village-Kerda, PO-Pihra, PS-Gawan, District-Giridih, Pin Code- 815313; 4. Chandan Kumar, aged about 33 years, Son of Baban Prasad Singh, Resident of at Dumri, BDO Office Dumri, PO & PS-Dumri, District-Giridih; 5. Dayanand, aged about 45 years, Son of Late Laljee Mishra, Resident of Lakhari, PO-Pachamba, PS- Giridih, District-Giridih, Pin Code-815316. .......Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi; 2. Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative, the then Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department, State of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District-Ranchi; 3. Director, Agriculture, Jharkhand having its office at 1st Floor, Agriculture Building, Laxmi Residence, Kanke Road, P.O. and P.S.-Kanke, District-Ranchi; 4. Secretary, Department of Finance, State of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jaggarnathpur, District-Ranchi; 5. Accountant General, State of Jharkhand, having its office at North Office Para, Shyamali Colony, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi. .......Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 2395 of 2023 -------- Rajnish Kumar, aged about 39 years, Son of Bhuneshwar Prasad, Resident of Village-Paimar Ghat, P.O.-Paimar Ghar, P.S.-Punpun, District-Patna (Bihar), Pin Code-804453. Versus .......Petitioner 1. State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi; 2. Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative, the then Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department, State of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi; 3. Director, Agriculture, State of Jharkhand having its office at 1st Floor, Agriculture Building, Laxmi Residence, Kanke Road, P.O. and P.S.-Kanke, District-Ranchi; 4. Secretary, Department of Finance, State of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jaggarnathpur, District-Ranchi; 5. Accountant General, State of Jharkhand, having its office at North Office Para, Shyamali Colony, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi. .......Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 2600 of 2023 -------- 1. Naveen Tirkey, aged about 33 years, Son of Late Alfred Tirkey, Resident of Nagwan Muhulla near Pafex Mall, P.O+ P.S Chatra, District- Chatra; 2. Rohit Kumar, aged about 35 years, Son of Sukhdeo Prasad, Resident at H.No-15, Bartan Dukan, Chatra Chowk, P.O+P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 3. Satish Kumar, aged about 43 years, Son of Late 2 Subodh Kumar, Village-Erki, P.O+P.S-Itkhori, District-Chatra; 4. Abhijeet Ghosh, aged about 33 years, Son of Nirendra Nath Ghosh, Resident of Village Surhi Muhalla, College Road, P.O., P.S. & District Chatra; 5. Sheo Mangal Kumar Suman, aged about 47 years, Son of Mohan Ram, Village-Karma, P.O Jori, P.S- B.Nagar Jori, District- Chatra; 6. Chittranjan Sharma, aged about 42 years, Son of Late Ramsuman Sharma, Village- Lowagara, P.O- Umta P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra;
Legal Reasoning
7. Ujjawal Kumar Singh, aged about 39 years, Son of Shri Krishna Kumar Singh, Village-Sonpur, P.O- Hafua, P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 8. Sanjeet Kumar, aged about 38 years, Son of Sahadeo Yadav, Resident of Gandharia, P.O- Unta, P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 9. Anjan Kumar, aged about 35 years, Son of Mewalal Thakur, Resident of Dibha Muhalla, P.O + P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 10. Ajay Kumar Saw, aged about 38 years, Son of Prayag Saw, Resident of Gangpur, P.O- Gangpur P.S- Gidhaur, District Chatra; 11. Jitendra Nayak, aged about 45 years, Son of Prem Prakash Nayak, Village-Gari Long, P.O+P.S- Tandwa, District- Chatra; 12. Avinash Lal, aged about 38 years, Son of Satya Narayan Lal, Resident of Gudri Bazar, Ram Nagar, Main Road, P.O+ P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 13. Shashi Kant Upadhyay, aged about 36 years, Son of Deo Narayan Upadhyay, Resident of Atiya Near Noor Hospital, Romy, P.O+P.S- Pelawal, District- Hazaribag; 14. Sandeep Kumar, aged about 33 years, Son of Ram Sewak Das, Village Kobna, P.O-Kobna P.S- Huntergunj, District- Chatra; 15. Kunwarjit Singh, aged about 46 years, Son of Digambar Singh, Resident of Sarley Housing Board Colony Road Dipugarah, Opposite of V.C P.O+P.O- Hazaribagh, District- Residence, Hazaribagh; 16. Dharamveer Kumar, aged about 37 years, Son of Lakhan Kandu, Resident of Diwan Khana, Muhalla Khaini, Gola Road, P.O.+P.S.-Chatra, District- Chatra; 17. Mukesh Kumar Singh, aged about 38 years, Son of 3 Kedar Singh, Resident of Gulli, P.O- Pitiz, P.S- Itkhori, District- Chatra; 18. MD Aslam, aged about 43 years, Son of Late MD. Rahim Mian, Resident at Super Medical Hall, Old Court More Near post office, P.O + P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 19. Santosh Kumar Gupta, aged about 47 years, Son of Mahabir Prasad, Resident of Master Muhalla Jori Near B.O.I, P.O- Jori, P.S- B.Nagar Jori, District- Chatra; 20. Ranjan Kumar Raju, aged about 34 years, Son of Bindedhwar Prasad, Village Bhagewar, P.O- Jajlo, P.S- Huntergunj, District-Chatra; 21. Pramod Kumar, aged about 34 years, Son of Deoki Bhuia, Village-Asadhiya, P.O-Kamta, P.S-Chatra, District- Chatra; 22. Rakesh Prasad, aged about 34 years, Son of Shanker Prasad, Village-Govardih, P.O- Jori P.S- B.Nagar Jori, District Chatra; 23. Nawal Kishor, aged about 38 years, Son of Shyam Sundar Prajapati, Resident at Surhi Near Chatra College, P.O + P.S- Chatra, District-Chatra; 24. Satish Kumar Mishra, aged about 33 years, Son of Arjun Mishra, Resident at Narayanpur, P.O- Narayanpur, P.S- Pratappur, District-Chatra; 25. Chandan Kumar Ram, aged about 37 years, Son of Prayag Ram, Resident at Baghmundi, P.O- Karnj, P.S- Itkhori, District- Chatra; 26. Pirmus Kerketta, aged about 39 years, Son of Kathdtiya Phulus Bhagwandas, P.O+P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; Kerketta, Resident of 27. Rohit Kumar, aged about 33 years, Son of Ganesh Prasad, Resident of Maa Parwati Colony Vishnupuri, P.O.- Hazaribag, P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazaribag; 28. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 37 years, Son of Jayant Kumar Pathak, Village post office- Kaura, P.O- Kaura, P.S- Pratappur, District- Chatra; 29. Indrasen Rajbhar, aged about 36 years, Son of Ramjanm Rajbhar, Village- Chour muhalla, Kathoutiya Mandir, P.O + P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 30. Ajay Ram Paswan, aged about 33 years, Son of Rajesh Ram, Village Koyed, P.O- Saradhu, P.S- Tandwa, District- Chatra; 31. Vinod Choudhary, aged about 41 years, Son of 4 Late Banarsi Choudhary, Village- Chour muhalla, Kathoutiya Mandir, P.O+ P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 32. Ram Bilas Ram, aged about 48 years, Son of Shyam Lal Ram, Resident of Ram Nivas, Nagwan Chatra, P.O+P.S. Chatra, District- Chatra; 33. Anjan Kunwar, aged bout 47 years, Son of Shivdhyan Kunwar, Resident of Buchindari Chatra Near Darzibhigha, P.O + P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 34. Manish Kujur, aged about 35 years, Son of Andhrius Kujur, Resident of Pakariya Near Labour office Chatra, P.O+ P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 35. Kumari Shashi Rekha, aged about 38 years, Daughter of Ranjan Kumar, Resident of Nagwan Chatra Opposite Honda Showroom, P.O+P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 36. Govind Ravidas, aged about 33 years, Son of Bedo Ravidas, Resident of Nagwan Chatra Behind Paffex Mall, P.O + P.S- Chatra, District-Chatra; 37. Rakesh Kumar Tyagi, aged about 38 years, Son of Brijmohan Prasad, Resident of Panchwan Muhalla, Thana Road, P.O + P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 38. Punam Kumari, aged about 40 years, Wife of Shri Abhay Kumar Rajak, Resident of Bhbhne Near Mission School, P.O+P.S Chatra, District-Chatra; 39. Ajit Kumar Yadav, aged about 39 years, Son of Late Lakhan Prasad Yadav, Resident of Nagwan Muhalla Near D.C. office Chatra, P.O.+P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra; 40. Sunil Lakra, aged about 38 years, Son of Bahadur Lakra, Resident of Asadhiya, P.O.- Kamta, P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra; 41. Munesh Tirkey, aged about 32 years, Son of Somra Oraon, Village-Darha, P.O.+P.S.-Chatra, District- Chatra; 42. Binay Kumar Choudhary, aged about 42 years, Son of Rajendra Choudhary, Resident of Near Block Office, P.O.+P.S.-Simaria, District- Chatra; 43. Sanjay Linda, aged about 34 years, Son of Kishun Oraon, Village-Darha, P.O.+P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra; 44. Munna Oraon, aged about 34 years, Son of Late Ram Karan Oraon, Village- Roshna, P.O- Kolhaiya, P.S- Rajpur, District- Chatra; 45. Deepak Kumar Sharma, aged about 34 years, Son of Prithwi Nath Thakur, Village- Bilari, P.O.- 5 Bahera, P.S. Piparwar, District- Chatra; 46. Nandu Choudhary, aged about 38 years, Son of Late Rambilas Choudhhary, Village-Chaurhar, Civil Aerodrum Gaya, P.O-P.S- Magadh Medical, District- Gaya (Bihar); 47. Abhishek Ghosh, aged 34 years, Son of Nirendra Nath Ghosh, Resident of Surhi Muhalla, College Road, P.O + P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 48. James Panna, aged about 38 years, Son of Beelphery Panna, Village- Soas, P.O + P.S- Shila, District- Chatra; 49. Ranjeeta Binha, aged about 37 years, wife of Alfred Emmanuel Marandi, Village- Babhane, P.O + P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 50. M.D Belal Ansari, aged about 35 years, Son of M.D Abdul Rajak Ansari, Village- Teliya Nawadih, P.O- Tatra, P.S- Rajpur, District- Chatra; 51. Rajeev Kumar Prabhakar, aged about 38 years, Son of Veni Mdhav Yadav, Resident of Awwal Muhalla, P.O + P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 52. Gautam Kumar Keshri, aged about 38 years, Son of Ashok Kumar Keshri, Resident of Marwari Muhulla Chatra, P.O + P.S- Chatra, District- Chatra; 53. M.D Imran, aged about 33 years, Son of Late M.D Usman, Village Simaria Kala, P.O+P.S-Simaria, District Chatra; 54. Vinay Kumar, aged about 43 years, Son of Sri Suresh Baitha, Village Nawada, P.O- Jabra, P.S- Simaria, District-Chatra; 55. Jitendra Kumar, aged about 41 years, Son of Sri Arjun Singh, Village Goa Khurd, P.O+P.S- Simaria, District- Chatra; 56. Sudha Deepika Horo, aged about 33 years, Wife of Bipin Lakra, Village-Babhne, Church Road, Chatra, P.O. + P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra; 57. Sanjay Kumar Rawani, aged 47 years, Son of Late of Larahi, P.O.- Sarju Rawani, Resident Mandhanla, P.S.-Mayurhand, District-Chatra. …….Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi; 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, 6 Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi; 3. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative, having its office at Nepal House, P.O., P.S.-Doranda & District- Ranchi; 4. The Director, Agriculture, Jharkhand having its office at Agriculture Bhawan, Kanke Road, P.O.- Kanke Road, P.S.-Gonda & District – Ranchi. .......Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 2647 of 2023 -------- 1. Ravindra Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Sri Ram Bali Singh, Resident of Qr. no. DT/2669, HEC Colony, PO+PS Dhurwa, District- Ranchi; 2. Lokesh Kumar, aged about 44 years, Ram Deo Kushwaha, resident of village Ladi, PO & PS- Patratu, District- Ramgarh; 3. Santosh Kumar, aged about 47 years son of Ram Lakhan Prasad, resident of New area, Morabadi, PO- Ranchi University, PS- Bariatu, District- Ranchi; 4. Mahima Erus Lakra, aged about 37 years, Son of Sri Masih Charan Lakra, Resident of Shanti Nagar, East Kokar, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S-Sadar, District- Ranchi; 5. Aditya Nath Jha, aged about 37 years, Son of Shankar Prasad Jha, Resident at Q.No.- E-19, KCW Colony Khalari, P.O. & P.S.- Khalari, District- Ranchi; 6. Anamika Singh, aged about 47 years, Daughter of Shri Ajit Singh, Resident of Indira Nagar Near Holy Child Public School, P.O-Hehal, P.S-Sukhdev Nagar, District- Ranchi; 7. MD Sohrab Khalil, aged about 44 years, Son of MD Khalil, Village-Kesa, P.O-Kesa P.S-Bero, District- Ranchi; 8. Upendra Kumar Singh, aged about 37 years, Son of Wakeel Singh, Village-Khukhra, P.O- Khukhra P.S- Narkopi(Bero), District- Ranchi. .......Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S.- Dhurwa, District – 7 Ranchi; 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O.+P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi; 3. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. + P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi; 4. The Director, Agriculture, Jharkhand having its office at Krishi Bhawan, Kanke Road, P.O.- Kanke Road, P.S.-Gonda, District Ranchi. .......Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 2698 of 2023 -------- 1. Anup Kumar, aged about 37 years, son of Arun Vishwakarma, resident of Sanjay Gandhi Path, Tangra Toli, Palmarganj, P.O & P.S. Lohardaga, District- Lohardaga, Jharkhand; 2. Ajay Kumar, aged about 36 years, son of Durga Prasad, resident of Ward No. 19, near Reliance Petrol Pump, Barwa Toli, Gumla Road, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga, …….Petitioners Jharkhand. 1. The State of Jharkhand; Versus 2. The Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi; 3. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.S. P.O. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi; Dhurwa, Dhurwa, 4. The Secretary, Planning cum Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi; 5. The Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi; 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga; 7. The Commissioner, Development Lohardaga, P.O and P.S Lohardaga, District Deputy 8 Lohardaga. .......Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 2833 of 2023 -------- 1. Pankaj Kumar Tiwary, aged about 34 years Son of Kunj Bihari Tiwary, Resident of Kewal Tola, Village Belchampa, P.O. Belchampa, P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa-822124, State Jharkhand; 2. Prashant Kumar Mishra aged about 44 years, Son of Awanindra Kumar Mishra, Resident of Village Dumarsota, Ward No. 2, P.O. Kandi, P.S. Bhawanipur, Dumsola, District Garhwa-822120, State Jharkhand; 3. Basant Kumar Pandey, aged about 44 years, Son of Parasnath Pandey, Resident of Village Korgan, P.O. Jainagar, P.S. Manjhiaon, District Garhwa 822120, State Jharkhand; 4. Rakesh Kumar Baitha, aged about 34 years, Son of Bithal Baitha, Resident of Village Halwantkalan, Ward No. 2, P.O. Haliwantkalan, P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa 822121, State Jharkhand; 5. Shahid Ansar aged about 47 years, Son of Hakim Ansari, Resident of Village Birbandha, P.O. Soh, P.S. Garhwa, Dstrict Garhwa-822114, State Jharkhand; 6. Gyanendra Kumar, aged about 45 years, Son of Sita Ram Mahto, Resident of Shiv Sthan, Ward No. 18, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa-822114, State Jharkhand; 7. Rajesh Kumar, aged about 37 years, Son of Satya Narayan Choudhary, Resident of Ward No. 7, Tola Gobardaha, Village Bkhahi, P.O. Bhikhah, P.S. State Danda, District Garhwa, Jharkhand; 822124, 8. Bhagrath Ravi, Aged about 33 years, Son of Ramdev Ram, Resident of Village Dandai, P.O. Dandai, P.S. Dandai, District Garhwa - 822114, State Jharkhand; 9. Rajiv Kumar @ Rajeev Kumar, aged about 34 years, Son of Banshi Ram, Resident of Near Prathmik Vidyalaya, Bihar Colony, P.O. Chas, Batnibor, P.S. Chas, District Bokaro 827013, State Jharkhand; 10. Rajgir Kumar, aged about 41 years, Son of Sureash Ram, Resident of Village Sangrahe, P.O. Sangrahi Kala, P.S. Garhwa-822124, State Jharkhand; 11. Ravindra Kumar, aged about 48 years, Son of Matuki Ram, Resident of Village Tandwa, P.O. 9 Tandwa, P.S. Ramna Tandwa, District Garhwa - 822128, State Jharkhand; 12. Uttam Ranjan, Aged about 37 years, Son of Gopalji Keshri, Resident of Village Keshri Mohalla, Ward No. 13, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa 822114, State Jharkhand; 13. Chandan Kumar, Aged about 38 years, Son of Late Munni Mahto, Resident of Near R.K. Petrolium, Village Tandwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa, State Jharkhand; 14. Parmanand Prasad, Aged about 38 years, Son of Yamuna Prasad, Resident of Dabgar Mohalla, Ward No. 17, P.O. Tandwa, P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa 822114, State Jharkhand; 15. Vikash Kumar, Aged about 33 years, Son of Amardeep Ram, Resident of Village Nawadih, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa-822124, State Jharkhand; 16. Rupesh Kumar Tiwari, Aged about 40 years, Son of Arun Tiwari, Resident of Village Adhaura. Ward No. 4, P.O. Adhaura, P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa- 822121, State Jharkhand; 17. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Aged about 36 years, Son of Satendra Prasad Gupta, Resident of Village Rohiniya, P.O. Jharkhand, P.S. Bhawnathpur, District Garhwa 822112, State Jharkhand; 18. Ajit Kumar Singh aged about 43 years, Son of Prayag Singh, Village Silidag, Ward No. 3, P.O. Silidag, P.S. Ramna, District Garhwa-822128, State Jharkhand; 19. Dileep Kumar Rajak, aged about 34 years, Son of Vishnu Dhari Baitha, Resident of Village Tanhe, Ward No. 3, P.O. Karui, P.S. Manjhiaon, District Garhwa 822114, State Jharkhand; 20. Chandra Kishor, aged about 37 years, Son of Kaushilya Devi, Resident of Qr. No. CD/09, P.O & P.S. Bhawnathpur, District Garhwa 822129, State Jharkhand; 21. Abhay Kumar Minz, aged about 40 years, Son of Sundar Minz, Resident of LRA-43, Argora Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S. Argora, Dstrict Ranchi 834002, State Jharkhand; 22. Rakesh Kumar Raushan, aged about 36 years, Son of Ramadhar Ram, Resident of Village Bhandra, Ward No. 2, P.O. Shivpur, P.S. Kandi, District Garhwa 822120, State Jharkhand; 23. Abhishek Kumar Singh, aged about 36 years, Son of Ashok Kumar Singh, Resident of Pathak 10 Mohalla Lane, Ward No. 5, Nagar Parishad, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa 822114, State Jharkhand; 24. Praveen Dubey aged about 39 years, Son of Krishna Mohan Dubey, Resident of Village Gara Khurd, Ward No.6, P.O. Sundipur, P.S. Kandi, District Garhwa 822115, State Jharkhand; 25. Om Prakash Singh aged about 44 years, Son of Late Nagendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village Bahiyari, Ward No. 8, P.O. & P.S. Nagar Untrai, District Garhwa 822121, State Jharkhand; 26. Suresh Kumar Singh aged about 36 years son of Ram Tilak Singh, Resident of Village Dhasani, P.O. Kanjia, P.S. Bhandariya, Madgarhi, District Garhwa 22125, State Jharkhand; 27. Deepak Kumar Chanchal aged about 36 years son of Dasrath Ram, Resident of Village Jarhi, P.O. Jarhi, P.S. Dandai, Bardari @ Jarhi, District Garhwa 822114, State Jharkhand; 28. Ramnath Chaudhary aged about 48 years, Son of Bigu Chaudhary, Resident of Village Ratangarh, P.O. Kandi, P.S. Kandi, Ward No. 1, District Garhwa 822120, State Jharkhand; 29. Kunal Gaurav aged about 38 years, Son of Vijay Kumar Soni, Resident of House No. 59, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa State Jharkhand. 822114, ……Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand represented by the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand having office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand; 2. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative having its office at Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand; 3. The Director, Agriculture, Jharkhand having its office at Agriculture Bhawan, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke Road, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi, State .......Respondents Jharkhand. With W.P. (S) No. 3049 of 2023 -------- 1. Jharkhand Rajya Jansewak Sangh, a registered society having its office at Girija Villa, Village Tabhaghat, P.O. Jasidih, P.S. Deoghar & District Deoghar being represented through one of its duly authorized member Saurabh Kumar, aged about 38 years, Son of Krishna Nandan Singh, Resident 11 of Sarwan Road, Behind Urminal Hotel, Karnibagh, P.O, P.S. Deoghar & District-Deoghar; 2. Subodh Kumar Ray, aged about 33 years, Son of Shyam Sunder Ray, Resident of Sarwan Road, P.O. Sarwan, P.S. Manigarhi & District-Deoghar. …….Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi; 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi; 3. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative, having its office at Nepal House, P.O., P.S. Doranda & District Ranchi; 4. The Director, Department of Agriculture, Jharkhand having its office at Agriculture Bhawan, Kanke Road, P.O.- Kanke Road, P.S.- .......Respondents Gonda & District - Ranchi. With W.P. (S) No. 3312 of 2023 -------- 1. Ashish Upadhyay, aged about 43 years, son of Uma Dutta Upadhyay, resident of Naginasingh Road, Giridih, P.Ο. & P.S. Giridih, District- Giridih (Jharkhand); 2. Renu Yadav, aged about 39 years, W/O Raj Kumar Yadav, R/O Village- Chondhitand, P.O- Orkhai, P.S- Dhanwar, District- Giridih (Jharkhand); 3. Surendra Mahto, aged about 46 years, S/O- Ramlal Mahto, R/O Village- Bandkharo, P.O- Bandkharo, P.S- Sariya, District- Giridih (Jharkhand); 4. Shashilal Hembram, aged about 37 years, S/O Goneshwar Hembram, R/O H.No-42 Pulchi, P.O + P.S- Ahilyapur, District- Giridih (Jharkhand); 5. Nandkishor Pandit, aged about 46 years, S/O Akhileshwar Pandit, R/O Village- Taratand, P.O + P.S- Taratand, District- Giridih (Jharkhand); 6. Uday Kumar Bharti, aged about 33 years, S/O Prahlad Sah, R/O Village- Mandardih, P.O- Chapuwadih, P.S- Bengabad, District- Giridih (Jharkhand); 12 7. Rajesh Kumar, aged about 47 years, S/O Janki Ram. R/O 578, Mohni Kunj, Argaghat Road, P.O- P.S- Giridih, District- Giridih Makatpur, (Jharkhand); 8. Veerendra Kumar Verma, aged about 37 years, S/O Shyamlal Mahto, R/O Village- Sakhaibad, P.O- Dumma, P.S- Jamua, District- Giridih (Jharkhand); 9. Priyanka Kumari, aged about 45 years, W/O Sunil Kumar Gupta, R/O Bajrang Chowk, Barmasia, P.O + (Town), District- Giridih (Jharkhand); P.S- Giridih 10. Anil Kumar, aged about 34 years, S/O Badri Mahto, R/O Ashok Nagar, P.O- Barganda, P.S- Giridih, District- Giridih; 11. Ajay Tudu, aged about 33 years, S/O Sonalal Tudu, R/O Village- Persatand, P.O- Barkitand, P.S- Bengabad, District- Giridih (Jharkhand); 12. Raja Swetav Tudu, aged about 35 years, S/O Emmanual Tudu, R/O House No.13 Village- Barmasiya, P.O.- Gadi Sirsiya, P.S.- Gandey, District- Giridih (Jharkhand); 13. Numay Kumar Das, aged about 34 years, S/O Raghunath Das, R/O Village Khandiha, P.O- S.P. Colony, P.S- Giridih, District- Giridih (Jharkhand); 14. Pradeep Ram, aged about 46 years, S/O Angalal Ram, R/O Gali No. 8, Najdik Shiv Chowk, P.O + P.S- Wagirabad, District- North Delhi; 15. Devendra Kumar Mandal, aged about 36 years, S/O Tarachand Mandal, R/O Village- Bandkharo, P.O- Bandkharo, P.S- Sariya, District- Giridih (Jharkhand); 16. Mahesh Kumar Das, aged about 41 years, S/O Kartik Ram, R/O Village- Chaudharidih, P.O- Sariya, District- Giridih Sabalpur, (Jharkhand); P.S- 17. Shashikant Gupta, aged about 41 years, S/O Balmukund Ram, R/O Village Nawadih, P.O + P.S- Nawadih District- Giridih (Jharkhand); 18. Anuj Kumar, aged about 46 years, S/O Late Satya Narayan Prasad, R/O Village- Palganj, P.O- Palganj, Giridih (Jharkhand); District- Pirtand, P.S- 19. Nilesh Kumar, aged about 42 years, S/O Jagdish Gope, R/O Behind Savera Cinema, P.O + P.S- Giridih, District- Giridih (Jharkhand); 20. Gautam Kumar Vishwakarma, aged about 34 13 years, S/O Prakash Vishwakarma, R/O High School Road, P.O + P.S- Pachamba, District- Giridih (Jharkhand); 21. Santosh Kumar, aged about 36 years, S/O Baijnath Prasad Yadav, R/O Village- Bishnitikar, P.O- Charki, P.S- Gawan, District- Giridih (Jharkhand); 22. Prabhat Paswan, aged about 49 years, S/O Murli Prasad Singh, R/O Giridih Block, Village Bhudhami, P.O.- Simariya, P.S.- Dhanwar, District- Giridih, (Jharkhand); 23. Sujeet Kumar Verma, aged about 36 years, S/O Naresh Mahto, R/O Rajendra Nagar, P.O + P.S Giridih (Muffasil), District- Giridih (Jharkhand). Versus ......Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.S. Jaggannathpur, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand); Dhurwa, Dhurwa, through P.O. 2. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand); of 3. The Director, Agriculture, Jharkhand, Agriculture Bhawan, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). Agriculture, Directorate Government of .......Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Adv. [in W.P.(S) No. 2397/23] Mr. Anuj Kumar Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Gupta, Adv. [in W.P.(S) Nos. 2253/23 & 2395/23] Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Miss Tanya Singh, Adv. [in W.P.(S) No. 2600/23 & 3049/23] Mr. Krishna Shankar, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh Munda, Adv. [in W.P.(S) No. 2647/23] Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Adv. [in W.P.(S) No. 2698/23] Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. [in W.P.(S) No. 2833/23] Mr. Govind Ray Karan, Adv. Mr. Ankit Apurva, Adv. [in W.P.(S) No. 3312/23] 14 For the Resp.-State : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV [in W.P.(5) Nos. 2397/23, 2253/23, 2395/23, 2600/23, 2647/23, 2698/23 & 3049/23] Mrs. Shruti Shrestha, SC (L&C)-II [in W.P.(S) No. 2395/23] Mr. Anuj Burman, AC to GA-IV [in W.P.(S) No. 2833/23] --------- C.A.V. ON:-09.07.2024 PRONOUNCED ON:-16/08/2024 Since all these writ applications involve common issue; as such, all are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In all these writ applications, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the notice of Director of Agriculture, Government of Jharkhand; whereby the grade pay of village level workers had been reduced from Rs.2,400/- to Rs.2,000/- vide Office Order No.44 dated 12.04.2022 (Letter No.1938) and an order not to recover surplus payment vide Office Order No.55 dated 25.04.2023; was cancelled vide Office order No.57 issued under Memo No.1999 dated 28.04.2023; all of which have been annexed as annexures in respective writ applications. 3. Learned counsels for the respective petitioners have contended that the petitioners have been appointed pursuant to an advertisement; wherein the grade-pay was mentioned as Rs.2400/-. They were also confirmed after about 7 to 8 years in the grade-pay of Rs.2400/-, but all of a sudden in the year 2022, the impugned order has been issued to the effect that their grade pay has wrongly been calculated to Rs.2400/-; rather, it should be Rs.2000/-. 4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ld. Sr. counsel submits that the action of the State Government is not sustainable in the eye of law. The State is not empowered to change the grade-pay or any service condition. He contended that after the advertisement and subsequent appointments of the petitioners in the grade pay of 2400 cannot be taken away which was also continued for more than a decade. 15 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respective petitioner contended that the action of the respondents does not have any legs to stand in the eye of law and is fit to be quashed and set aside 6. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the 2011 notification, there was an amendment in 2012 and pursuant thereto; an advertisement was issued wherein there was specific mention of the grade-pay and finally appointment letters were also issued in favour of respective petitioners with the same grade- pay. He further contended that this grade-pay was not a contingent right but it is a vested right. 7. Mr. Sujit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Fitment Committee Report which is being relied upon by the respondents will not be applicable in this case because of the amendment and in the said Circular of 660 itself there is a mention of grade-pay of Rs. 2400/- at the top of the paragraph. 8. In nutshell, learned counsels for the respective petitioners have contended that the action of the respondent in reducing the grade-pay by taking a ground that it was a mistake is Non-Est in the eye of law. Neither they can do so after the appointment as well as confirmation nor; a vested right can be taken away as per the settled rules. 9. In the Circular of 660 also it is mentioned that the candidates will get grade-pay of Rs.2400/-. They have further contended that the reduction of grade-pay will be down- grading of the position what they were called for vide advertisement and with their confirmed in the job. In crux, the act of the respondent-department is a change in service condition which is not permissible in the eye of law. 10. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV and Mrs. Shruti Shrestha, SC (L&C)-II assisted by Mr. Anuj Burman, AC to GA-IV, representing the respondents in the respective cases 16 submits that they have not committed any mistake and they have rectified the grade-pay as per Fitment Committee Report because they have wrongly given grade-pay of Rs.2400/- to the petitioners. He draws attention of this Court towards the Fitment Committee Report wherein at para 35.13, it is clearly mentioned that the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000 for the serving Village Level Workers. Learned counsel for the State respondents contended that the said paragraph clearly recommends that in future new appointments will be made in the pay-scale of Rs.3200-4900. He further refers to the Circular No.660 dated 08.02.1999 wherein the pay-scale of Jansewak and revised pay-scale of Jansewak have been mentioned as Rs.1200-1800 & 4000-6000. However, in the said Circular it is categorically mentioned that new recruits will in future be on the scale of Rs.3200-4900. He further submits that the Fitment Committee Report is binding on the State and it is a settled law that if any mistake has been committed by the State that can be rectified at any stage. He further submits that grade-pay has not been reduced, inasmuch as, the grade-pay of Rs.3200-4900 will come to grade pay Rs.2000/- and not Rs.2400/-. 11. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties in all these writ applications it appears that the petitioners have been appointed pursuant to an advertisement; wherein the grade-pay was mentioned as Rs.2400/-. They were also confirmed after about 7 to 8 years in the grade-pay of Rs.2400/-, but all of a sudden in the year 2022, the impugned order has been passed to the effect that the grade pay has wrongly been calculated to Rs.2400/-; rather, it should be Rs.2000/-. It further appears that the respondents have taken a ground in reducing the grade pay is that the petitioners were given the grade pay of 2400 was a mistake, which they 17 have rectified. They have also referred the Fitment Committee Report especially para 35.13; wherein it is clearly mentioned that the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000 will be for the serving Village Level Workers. 12. At this stage itself it is necessary to indicate that the Fitment Committee Report which is being relied upon by the respondents will not be applicable in this case because of the amendment in the year 2012 and in the said Circular of 660 itself there is a mention of grade-pay of Rs. 2400/- at the top of the paragraph and pursuant thereto; an advertisement was issued wherein there was specific mention of the grade- pay and finally appointment letters were also issued in favour of respective petitioners with the grade-pay of 2400. 13. Here it is pertinent to mention here that this grade-pay of 2400 was not a contingent right but a vested right and continued for years; thus, the same cannot be taken away. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Kumar V. Union of Indian and Another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 1 wherein at para 340 it has been held as under:- 340. As far as the distinct kind of legal rights are concerned, in the classification made by Salmond [ See, Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn., P.J. Fitzgerald.] which counts nine distinct legal classifications of legal rights, we notice the following discussion of classification between vested and contingent rights. To quote: “Vested and contingent rights— A right vests when all the facts have occurred which must by law occur in order for the person in question to have the right. A right is contingent when some but not all of the vestive facts, as they are termed, have occurred. A grant of land to A in fee simple will give A a vested right of ownership. A grant to A for life and then to B in fee simple if he survives A, gives B a contingent right. It is contingent because some of the vestive facts have not yet taken place, and indeed may never do so : B may not survive A, if he does, his formerly contingent right now becomes vested. A contingent right then is a right that is incomplete. A contingent right is different, however from a mere hope of spes. If A leaves B a legacy in his will, B has no right to this during A's lifetime. He has no more than a hope that he will obtain a legacy; he certainly does not have an incomplete right, since it is open to A at any time to alter his will.” As stated hereinabove, pursuant to the advertisement; wherein there was specific mention of the grade-pay and finally appointment letters were also issued in favour of respective petitioners with the same grade-pay and the jobs of 18 respective petitioner were also confirmed at the same grade pay of 2400 and the same continued for about a decade. As a matter of fact, the service conditions of the petitioners are to be protected and cannot be changed to his detriment by virtue of the regulation; as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court (Refer Grid Corporation of Orissa and Others V. Rasananda Das reported in (2003) 10 SCC 297 para 7 to 9.) Further, the State is not empowered to change the grade-pay or any service condition of its employee. (Refer State of Bihar and Others V. Bihar State Workshop Superintendents Federation and Others reported in 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 368 para 8). 14. The action of the respondents is also bad from other angle, inasmuch as, rules cannot be changed after advertisement. In this case, pursuant to the advertisement; with specific mention of the grade-pay; the respective petitioner applied and selected and finally appointment letters were also issued. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically reprimanded such action and held that to pay any salary/pay scale lesser than what was offered at the time of inviting the applications would be changing the conditions of service, which is not permissible. In the case of Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited and Others V. Naresh Kumar Mishra and Others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 110 para 24, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “24. Challenge to the Resolution dated 27-3-2012 is also required to be considered from another angle. At the time of advertisement and inviting the applications, the employees were offered the specific pay scales against respective posts. It appears that the pay scale which was offered and thereafter paid by it till the Resolution dated 27-3-2012 was on a par with the pay scale paid to the government employees as per the 5th PRC. Therefore, thereafter, to pay any salary/pay scale lesser than what was offered at the time of inviting the applications would be changing the conditions of service, which is not permissible.” 15. Having regards to the aforesaid discussions, I hold that the action of the respondent in reducing the grade-pay by 19 taking a ground that it was a mistake is Non-Est in the eye of law. Neither they can do so after the appointment as well as confirmation; nor a vested right can be taken away as per the settled rules. 16. In view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the respective impugned orders i.e. Office Order No.44 dated 12.04.2022 (Letter No.1938) and all consequential orders passed with respect to the same, are hereby, quashed and set aside. The details of respective impugned orders are given hereinbelow:- (i) Office Order No.57 (Letter No.1999) dated 28.04.2023, Letter No.2000 dated 28.04.2023 and Office Order No.44 (Letter No.1938) dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-10 series) in W.P. (S) No.2397 of 2023. (ii) Order No.44 contained in Memo No.1938 dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-6) in W.P.(S) No.2395 of 2023. (iii) Memo No.1914 dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure-4) in W.P.(S) No.2253 of 2023. (iv) Office Order No.44 dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-11) and Office Order No.57 as contained in memo No.1999 dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure-13) in W.P.(S) No.2600 of 2023. (v) Office Order No.57 contained in Memo No.1999 dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure-10), Letter No.2000 dated 28.04.2023 contained in Memo No.2000 dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure-11), Office Order No.55 (Memo No.1914) dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure-9) and Office Order No.44 (Letter No.1938) dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-8) in W.P. (S) No.2647 of 2023. (vi) Orders dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-6) and 28.04.2023 (Annexure-7/1) in W.P.(S) No.2698 of 2023. (vii) Office Order No.57 (Letter No.1999) dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure-6/1), Office Order No.44 (Letter No.1938) dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-5) and Office Order No.55 20 dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure-6) in W.P.(S) No.2833 of 2023. (viii) Office Order No.44 dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-11) and Office Order No.55 dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure- 12) in W.P. (S) No.3049 of 2023. (ix) Office Order No.44 contained in Letter bearing Memo No.1938 dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure-7). It goes without saying that the money, if already recovered from these petitioners, be paid to them preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. Accordingly, these writ applications stand allowed. Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated:-16/08/2024 Vikas/- AFR / NAFR (Deepak Roshan, J.) 21