The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6139 of 2015 With W.P.(S) No. 6819 of 2018 Sheikh Izzatullah … … Petitioner V e r s u s 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest & Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi 3. State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Govt. of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna, Bihar 4. Accountant General, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi … … … Respondents [In both Writ Petitions] … … Respondent [In W.P.(S) No. 6139 of 2015] CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate Mr. Niraj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State [In W.P.(S) No. 6139 of 2015] Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC(Mines-III) Mr. Faisal Allam, AC to SC Mines For the State [In W.P.(S) No. 6819 of 2018]: For the Accountant General: Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate For the State of Bihar: Mr. Chandan Tiwari, AC to GA-I 07/25.06.2024 Heard the parties. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and are connected matters and as such both have been tagged and being
Decision
disposed of together. Petitioner has assailed the order of dismissal dated 23.03.2017 whereby he has been dismissed from the service with effect from respective date. At the very outset, Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel submits that counter affidavit is ready but the same could not be filed within time and as such leave may be granted to place the same on record. Permission is accorded. Let the counter affidavit be form part of the record. Office to do the needful. Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel argues that this case has got a checkered history. Petitioner’s dismissal was matter of challenge before 1 the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3466 of 2003. The order of dismissal was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted back to the State of Jharkhand. It is case of the petitioner that during pendency of the writ petition, petitioner had superannuated from the service and as such he was never reinstated into the service. No order was ever passed for making payment of retiral benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of similarly situated persons namely one Basarat Hussain, same order was passed. Based on the order passed in the case of Basarat Hussain, the Court passed order in C.W.J.C. No. 3466 of 2003. Learned counsel representing State of Jharkhand submits that superannuation of the petitioner was never brought to the knowledge of the Hon’ble Patna High Court and hence order was passed. However, same was never challenged before any competent Court, either before the State of Jharkhand or State of Bihar. Admittedly Basarat Hussain was extended benefits by the State of Jharkhand after his reinstatement and after superannuation, everything was paid to him. The case of Basarat Hussain is identical but different yardstick has been adopted in both the cases. Petitioner has not been extended the retiral benefits on the ground that he was never reinstated 7. 8. into the service and he had already superannuated. 9. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel representing State of Jharkhand submits that order itself was per incurium because relevant facts were not brought before the Hon’ble Patna High Court. Learned counsel very fairly submits that even Contempt Application was filed and the Court did not entertain said Contempt application on the ground that reasoned order had already been passed by the State of Jharkhand. 10. The reasoned order is under challenge for proper adjudication before this Court. When the order of present petitioner was based on the order passed in the case of Basarat Hussain, how it is open for the State to take a different stand. Since Court itself has held that both the matters are identical and the respondents – State of Jharkhand and Bihar ought to have treated both the persons at similar footing and similar order ought to have been passed in both the cases and there should not be any discrimination. 2 11. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel fairly submits that State of Jharkhand is ready to pay admitted dues and waiting for the documents to be received from the State of Bihar. 12. Having heard the parties and considering facts and circumstances of the case, I find case of the present petitioner is identical in nature to the case of Basarat Hussain who has already been extended the retiral benefits after his superannuation. Only on the ground that petitioner was never reinstated, he cannot be discriminated and deprived from the retiral benefits. 13. In view of facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the impugned order as contained in Memo NO. 9, dated 23.03.2017 [Annexure-10 in W.P.(S) No. 6819 of 2018] is hereby quashed and set aside. Though a reasoned order has been passed by the respondents – State of Jharkhand, it appears that the legal provisions have not been taken into account before interfering into the impugned order. It is worth mentioning herein that it is settled principle of law that no order of dismissal ought to have been issued from retrospective date. The Court is aware of the fact that the matter was remitted back to the respondents. The respondent – State of Jharkhand has thereafter rejected claim of the petitioner without issuing notice and without proper opportunity of hearing, the same is imbibe of the order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court. On this score also, the impugned order dated 23.03.2017 is fit to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for extending retiral benefits to the extent the same has been extended to Basarat Hussain, whose case is identical. The respondent – State of Bihar is directed to send documents pertaining to the petitioner to the concerned department of State of Jharkhand who, after verifying the same, shall extend the benefits as indicated hereinabove, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The amount is directed to be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law taking into consideration the findings arrived hereinabove. 14. The writ petitions stand allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 3