The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A. No. 290 of 2023 Ravindra Kumar Sinha, aged about 63 years, son of Sri Girwardhari Singh, resident of Flat No. 201, Laxmi Tower, Magistrate Colony, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, … … Writ petitioner/Appellant Town and District-Ranchi Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative, having office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Town and District Ranchi 2. The Director, Directorate of Dairy Development, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Sector-II, HEC Colony, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, Town and District Ranchi 3. The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Planning-cum-Finance, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District Dhurwa 4. Under Secretary to Government (Personal Claim Settlement Cell), Planning- cum-Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District Dhurwa. … … 5. Ashish Kateryar; 6. Amit Kateryar; 7. Abhijeet Kumar; Respondents/Respondents (Contesting Respondents) All sons of Late Surendra Mohan Kateryar, son of Late Ravindra Prasad Kateryar, resident of Flat No. B-201, Ishwari Enclave, Lower Vidyapati Nagar, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, Town and District Ranchi … … Writ petitioner/Proforma Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellant For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Manoj Tondon, Advocate Mr. Adamya Kerketta, Advocate Mr. Piyush Kumar Roy, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kumar, AAG-IV --- Order No. 04/Dated: 29th January 2024 I.A. No. 4907 of 2023 This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of one day in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. In view of the averments made in the interlocutory application, I.A. No. 4907 of 2023 is hereby allowed and delay of one day in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. L.P.A. No. 290 of 2023 3. The appellant who was writ petitioner No. 2 is aggrieved by the order dated 14th March 2023. By this order, the writ Court has directed the Director 2 L.P.A. No. 290 of 2023 of Dairy Development under the Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative to pass a fresh order with respect to the financial benefits claimed by the appellant. 4. The State of Jharkhand has not challenged the writ Court’s order passed in W.P. (S) No. 605 of 2021. 5. Before the writ Court, the appellant and Surendra Mohan Kateryar who passed away during pendency of W.P. (S) No. 605 of 2021 challenged a part of the salary slip for the month of October 2018 which indicated that the annual increment given to them was withdrawn. The writ Court noted that on their
Decision
promotion the writ petitioners were granted annual increment which was later on withdrawn unilaterally. The writ Court further observed that the stand taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit that the writ petitioners had failed to pass 4th and 5th paper of departmental examinations in “Development” and “Computer” cannot be countenance in law, inasmuch as, till the writ petitioners superannuated from service no examination was ever held for the subject papers “Development” and Computer. 6. In the background of the aforementioned facts, the writ Court quashed a part of the salary slip issued to the appellant vide letter No. 36-269-DAI-2015- 12531 dated 31st October 2018. 7. Mr. Manoj Tondon, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition ought to have been allowed in view of the findings recorded by the writ Court in the order dated 14th March 2023 and the order of remand to the respondent No. 2 for taking a fresh decision in the matter is not justified. 8. Opposing this Letters Patent Appeal, Mr. Ashok Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate General – IV submits that the apprehension of the appellant is without any foundation and the respondent No. 2 is bound to keep in mind the findings recorded in W.P. (S) No. 605 of 2021 while passing the order for grant of financial benefits to the appellant. 9. In the order dated 14th March 2023, the writ Court held as under: “The petitioners in this writ application have specifically averred that the increments granted to both the petitioners were withdrawn unilaterally without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and counter affidavit seems to be silent in that respect. In fact, a perusal of the counter affidavit reveals that they had not passed the 4th and 5th paper i.e. Development and Computer according to the respondents and that was the reason for the withdrawal of the increment granted to the petitioners. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners reply has been given to the effect that though rules were framed on 30.11.2013 but no examination was ever held for the subject Development and Computer till the superannuation of the petitioner no. 1 on 31.01.2019 and petitioner no. 2 on 31.05.2019. 3 L.P.A. No. 290 of 2023 The specific averment made in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit virtually dilutes the contention of the respondent-authorities that on account of the petitioners having not passed the Departmental Examination with respect to Development and Computer, the increment granted to the petitioners were withdrawn. Moreover, as has been noted above, it is an admitted fact that that petitioners were never intimated about the impending withdrawal of the increment as neither any show cause notice was issued to the petitioners nor they were given opportunity of hearing to contradict the stand taken by the respondents. In the circumstances noted above therefore, while quashing the part of Leave / Salary Slip contained in Letter No. 36-372-DAI- 2016/12475 dated 29.10.2018 which relates to the petitioner no. 1 and that part of the Leave / Salary Slip as contained in Letter No. 36-269- DAI-2015-12531 dated 31.10.2018 which relates to petitioner no. 2 the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 2 to take a fresh decision with respect to the withdrawal of the increment granted to both the petitioners in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The decision which is to be taken by the respondent no. 2 shall be within a period of six week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the claim of the petitioners is found to be genuine, necessary order shall be issued by the respondent no. 2 with respect to the financial benefits which may accrue to the petitioners. This writ application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observation.” 10. Having regard to the findings recorded by the writ Court which clearly indicate that the respondent No. 2 has been directed to pass an order with respect to the financial benefits to the appellant, the plea urged on behalf of the appellant seems to be arising out of an apprehension that the respondent No. 2 may again reject his claim. However, we are of the opinion that the respondent No. 2 shall be bound by the findings recorded by the writ Court and it was only with a view to maintain the limits of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution that the writ Court has issued such a direction to the respondent No. 2 to pass an order granting financial benefits to the appellant. 11. We may further observed that notwithstanding the legal heirs of late Surendra Mohan Kateryar not being before this Court, the respondent No. 2 shall pass an order granting financial benefits to him, if he was also otherwise eligible, and the benefits shall be provided to his legal heirs. 12. L.P.A. No. 290 of 2023 is disposed of with the above directions to the respondent No. 2. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)