The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A No. 220 of 2021 1. State of Jharkhand through the Additional Chief Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Depart., Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. Principal Secretary/ Secretary, Hi`1gher Technical Education & Skill Development Depart. Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Director (Technical Education) Higher Technical Education & Skill Development Depart. Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. Principal Secretary, Finance Depart. Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 5. The Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Adityapur, Saraikela, Kharsawan ... ... ... Appellants Versus 1. Radha Mohan Sharma 2. Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi … … … ... Respondents ... Performa Respondents --------- CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J. --------- For the Appellants: For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Sharad Kaushal, AC to AAG 04/Dated: 31.03.2023 --------- Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per. Ananda Sen, J.)
Decision
ORDER 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is at the instance of State whereby the State has challenged the order 7.12.2020 passed in W.P(S) No. 6789 of 2019, wherein the learned Single Judge has directed the State to grant similar benefit to the petitioner which has been granted to the petitioner of CWJC No. 10680 of 2000.. 3. The writ petitioner(s) was appointed in the unified State of Bihar in Magadh Engineering College, Gaya on 26.11.1986 on the post of Registrar. The said college was taken over by the State by virtue of Bihar Private Engineering College (taken over ordinance), 1986. The ordinance took shape of the Act in the year 1991. The college was taken over with effect from 09.12.1986. In view of a report of Standing Committee vide notification dated 31.01.1991, the service of the petitioner was terminated with effect from 31.01.1991. The petitioner preferred a writ application which was allowed vide order dated 6.5.1996 and the petitioner’s service was confirmed and regularized with effect from 31.01.1991. -2- He was given all monetary benefits and increments as granted to a permanent employee on the same date. The petitioner was thereafter transferred. At the time of reorganization of the State of Bihar, the petitioner was posted in the Government Polytechnic, Adityapur, within the territorial jurisdiction of the newly formed State of Jharkhand. His service was allotted to the Jharkhand Cadre, in the Cadre Division. 4. Similarly situated person who was terminated on 31.01.1991 moved the Hon’ble Patna High Court in CWJC 10680 of 2000 (Sanat Kumar Pandey & Ors). The Hon’ble Patna High Court held that those persons are entitled for annual increments from the date of taking over of the college, i.e from 09.12.1986 , as well as continuity of service including the period they were out of service on account of termination. It was held that the calculation would be notional from 31.01.1991 till 5.9.1996. The Review Petition No. 61 of 2008 filed by the State praying for reviewing the order passed in C.W.J.C No. 10680 of 2000 was dismissed on 29.01.2014. The State of Bihar thereafter issued order dated 10.03.2014 to the Accountant General Bihar for issuance of salary slip in favour of those petitioners. By virture of the said order and consequent action, Sanat Kumar Pandey & Sri Manoj Kumar Singh & Shri Bindeshwari Jha were posted in the state of Jharkhand and were allotted to the Jharkhand Cadre during cadre division also got the benefits. 3. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that since petitioner’s case is exactly similar to those person, he is also entitled to get the same benefit. The learned Single Judge heard the counsel for the parties and found that the case of the petitioner is exactly similar to those who have been granted the relief in C.W.J.C No. 10680 of 2000 and in the Review Application No. 61 of 2008. The learned Single Judge also held that the State could not distinguish the case of the petitioner with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High. The learned Single Judge after going through the counter- affidavit made the following observations which reads as under:- “The Court has perused the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent State wherein also there is no distinguishing fact as to why the petitioner is not entitled for the same benefit in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in two writ petitions.” Learned Single Judge thus granted the relief to the petitioner(s) which was granted to similarly situated persons. -3- 6. Further during argument the counsel for the respondents has placed before us the judgment passed in LPA No. 278 of 2021 and analogous cases wherein coordinate Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the appeal of the State in relation to other exactly similarly situated respondents. The Division Bench has also taken note of the order passed in C.W.J.C No. 10680 of 2000 and has held that no contrary view could be taken. The respondents in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal were granted exactly similar benefit which this petitioner had claimed in the writ petition which is the subject matter of this Letters Patent Appeal. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of UP & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors. reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 at para 22.1 has held as follows:- “22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated person should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.” 8. Considering the aforesaid law and the facts in this case since it is an admitted fact that the relief which has been granted to the petitioners of CWJC No. 10680 of 2000 & LPA No. 278 of 2021 is similar to what the respondent in this Letters Patent Appeal is claiming, we find no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. 10. All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. 11. No orders as to costs. 12. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules. N.A.F.R. Anjali/- (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) (Ananda Sen, J.)