Bibi Jannat Nisha alias Jannat Nisha v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4594 of 2016 Bibi Jannat Nisha alias Jannat Nisha Versus …. Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 2. The Animal Husbandry Officer, Baghmara, District- Dhanbad. 3. The Treasury Officer, Dhanbad. 4. The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Dhanbad. 5. The District Animal Husbandry, Sahibganj. 6. The State of Bihar. 7. The Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Bihar, Patna. 8. The Director, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Bihar, Patna. 9. The Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Office, Darbhanga, Bihar. 10. The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Darbhanga. 11. The Treasury Officer, Darbhanga, Bihar. 12. The Union of India through the Ministry of Personnel P.G. & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi. 13. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 14. The Accountant General, Ranchi, Jharkhand. …. …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ ------ For the Petitioner : Md. Samimul Hoda, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Fahad Allam, Advocate For the Resp.-State of Jharkhand : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Resp.-State of Bihar : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate For the Resp.-A.G., Jharkhand : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate ----- 10/ 18.04.2024 Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 04.06.2005 at Annexure-2 series, by which, husband of the petitioner was retired from the services on 31.10.2004 from the post of District Animal Husbandry Officer, Baghmara, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, on attaining the age of 58 years. Further, direction has been sought for to consider the case of petitioner’s husband by treating him to have retired on attaining the age of Shashank 60 years with further consideration of Payment of Salary including all consequential benefits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that husband of the petitioner, namely Dr. Ehsan Ahmed Siddique, was appointed as Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Atari, Gaya, Bihar, in 1973. Subsequently, petitioner’s husband was transferred to Baghmara at Dhanbad, Jharkhand for the period from 03.01.2002 to 04.06.2005. Thereafter, vide Letter No. 719 dated 01.11.2004, petitioner’s husband was communicated that, in view of Notification No. 5826 dated 26.10.2004 issued by the State Government of Jharkhand, his age of retirement has been extended from 58 years to 60 years. However, vide impugned order dated 04.06.2005 bearing Letter No. 335, it has been communicated to the petitioner’s husband that pursuant to the guidelines issued by the Central Government contained in Letter No. 28/43/2004-SRS dated 29.03.2005, the Department of Veterinary and Fisheries, Jharkhand Government, has decided to retire the petitioner’s husband on 31.10.2004 itself, on attaining the age of 58 years and has allocated his services to the State of Bihar. 4. Md. Samimul Hoda, learned counsel representing the petitioner, assisted by Mr. Fahad Allam, emphatically urges that the petitioner is entitled for all the benefits treating her husband to have retired on attaining the age of 60 years instead of 58 years. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court passed in the case of Madheshwar Dhari Singh and Another versus Union of India and Others reported in 2006 (2) J C R 404 (Jhr). Learned counsel submits that the notification/letter dated 29.03.2005 issued by the Central Government was quashed and set aside, treating it to be ultra vires, by this Hon’ble Court and the same has also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar and Others versus Madheshwar Dhari Singh (Dead) through LRs and Others in Civil Appeal No. 9018 of 2013. Learned counsel further argues that since the notification/letter dated 29.03.2005 itself is not in existence, the case of the petitioner’s husband should be treated as retired after attaining the age of 60 years, followed with all the consequential Shashank benefits. Learned counsel also argues that since the widow has approached this Court, taking a sympathetic view that there are no latches on the part of the petitioner or her legal heirs, a direction be given to the respondents to pay the entire benefits taking into consideration the retirement of the petitioner’s husband on attaining the age of 60 years. 5. On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel representing the respondent-State of Bihar, and Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, learned counsel representing the respondent-State of Jharkhand, opposing the contentions of
Decision
the petitioner, submit that the writ petition is itself not maintainable on the ground that earlier, the writ petition filed by the petitioner’s husband was dismissed for default by the Hon’ble Patna High Court vide order dated 01.05.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11332 of 2005. It has been argued that no liberty was given to the petitioner’s husband, rather the petitioner did not even bother to file a restoration petition before the Hon’ble Patna High Court and she has directly moved before this Court in the instant writ petition. On merits, it has been argued that since this Hon’ble Court in the case of Madheshwar Dhari Singh (supra) has expressed its opinion not to give effect to clause (a) of Paragraph No. 2 of the notification/letter dated 29.03.2005 issued to the Central Government, the same cannot be adhered to. It has been further submitted that if a direction is given by this Court, the same shall be considered in view of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Madheshwar Dhari Singh (supra) or in view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9018 of 2013 (supra). 6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner deserves consideration for following facts and reasons:- 1. Admittedly, husband of the petitioner was in the services of Animal Husbandry Department, State of Jharkhand, and thereafter his services were allocated to State of Bihar. 2. State of Bihar as well as State of Jharkhand, on the basis of guidelines issued by the Central Government, came with a Shashank notification for enhancing the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years. 3. The confusion arose only because of the untimely cadre allocation of the employees from the State of Jharkhand to the State of Bihar and vice versa. 7. The anomaly which occurred due to the said untimely cadre allocation has already been clarified by this Hon’ble Court in case of Madheshwar Dhari Singh (supra). It is not in dispute that the age of superannuation of the employees was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. The husband of the petitioner cannot be faulted for the act of his cadre was allocated to the State of Bihar. From the various documents brought on record, it appears that husband of the petitioner worked till May, 2005, which gives clear picture that the respondents were very much aware of the fact that age of superannuation of the employees has been enhanced from 58 years to 60 years and, therefore, he was allowed to continue. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner’s husband has illegally continued his service till May, 2005. It was only because of the enhanced age of superannuation. The Court, in the case of Madheshwar Dhari Singh (supra), was of the view that:- “13. Every Institution is bound to frame and follow an uniform rule for superannuating its employees. The employer is under statutory obligation to uniformly apply the provisions of the Acts and Rules to its employees. The Central Government is also supposed to apply the rule of superannuation uniformly to all similarly situated employees.” 8. Since this Court, in the case of Madheshwar Dhari Singh (supra), was of the view and has expressed its opinion not to give effect to clause (a) of Paragraph 2 to the Guideline/letter dated 29.03.2005 issued by the Central Government, the same shall not be given effect to and the employees should be retired from the services on attaining the age of 60 years. Though the husband of the petitioner has died, the petitioner (widow) is entitled for the same benefits which ought to have been given to her deceased husband. Shashank 9. The issue raised by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand and the respondent-State of Bihar regarding maintainability of the case is not accepted to this Court because almost 8 years have passed since filing of the instant writ but, never any issue was raised regarding maintainability of the instant case and on the other hand, since the earlier case filed by the deceased husband of the petitioner before the Hon’ble Patna High Court was dismissed for default and not on merits, this Court is fully satisfied that the case of the petitioner if fully maintainable in this High Court. 10. Since the widow has approached this Court and the matter is covered by the judgment of this High Court passed in the case of Madheshwar Dhari Singh (supra), which has been affirmed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is in full agreement with the views expressed by this Court and takes no any other view than what has been taken by this Court. 11. In view of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 04.06.2005 at Annexure-2 series and all consequential orders are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for granting all consequential benefits treating her deceased husband to have superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years. The entire exercise of granting benefits shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. 13. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) Shashank