Anil Kumar Sharma v. Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK ------ For the Petitioner : For Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 : For Respondent No.1 Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate : Ms. Shivani Kapoor, AC to SC-III ----- 5/ 19.07.2022 Heard the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Forest Produce Inspector / Range Officer, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation, Ltd from the date of first representation dated

24.11.2020. Precisely stated the fact that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Forest Produce Inspector / Range Officer, in the erstwhile State of Bihar in the year 1987. The petitioner by his letter dated 27.7.2020, opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme, while he was posted as Range Officer, Ranchi and such request was also acceded by the Department vide order no. 42 dated 1.10.2020. However, later on, the petitioner requested for withdrawal of his voluntary retirement and requested for reinstatement by his letter dated 24.11.2020, which was duly received in the office of respondents on 26.11.2020. Thereafter, no heed was paid on the request of the petitioner regarding withdrawal of voluntary retirement. At the very outset, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suffice it would be if the matter is remanded back to the respondent nos. 1 and 3 to reconsider the matter of the petitioner, within stipulated time, in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Power Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia (1997) 4 SCC 280, Shambhu Murari Sinha -Versus- Project & Development

India Ltd & Anr, (2002) 3 SCC 437 and Nirmal Verma Vs. MCD & Anr., reported in ILR (2005) 1 Delhi 398 and also taking into consideration the legal opinion of the learned Advocate General, Jharkhand, which has been brought on record at page-55 of the writ petition. Per contra, no counter-affidavit has been filed. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not object to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and without entering into the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to approach the respondents with a copy of this order, along with his representation and any other documents, on which he is relying upon, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondent nos. 1 and 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgments cited supra, as also taking into account the legal opinion of the learned Advocate General, Jharkhand and pass a speaking order assigning valid and concrete reason for consideration /non-consideration of the case of the petitioner regarding reinstatement, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. of. R.Kr. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)