The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 7568 of 2017 Ananya Prasad [substituted vide order dated 22.02.2023, passed in I.A. No. 1358 of 2019 after death of Ramashish Prasad] - V E R S U S - … … … PETITIONER Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand 1. 2. Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. Managing Director, Jharkhand State Agriculture Marketing Board, Itki Road, Ranchi Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj. Secretary, Agriculture Market Produce Committee, Sahibganj. 4. 5. … … … RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents For the JSAMB
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate Mr. Saba Ali, Advocate Mr. Amit Raj, Advocate Mr. Z. Khan, Advocate : Mr. Varun Prabhakar, AC to GP-III : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate 10/17.07.2023 Heard Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and assisted by Mr. Saba Ali, Amit Raj and Z. Khan; Mr. Varun Prabhakar, AC to learned GP-III on behalf of the State and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of JSAMB assisted by Mr. Shivam Singh. PRAYER 2.
Decision
The writ petitioner has knocked door of this Court with a prayer for quashing the order no. 6, dated 25.09.2017, as contained in Memo No. 288, dated 29.09.2017, issued by the Market Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Sahebganj, terminating service of the petitioner without any notice or opportunity of being heard. Pursuant to the order dated 22.02.2023, passed in I.A. No. 1358 of 2019, further prayer was added to the effect for a direction upon the respondents to release arrears of Provident Fund, Gratuity and arrears of salary and other legal dues RC 2 and further to consider candidature of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. FACTS OF THE CASE 3. It is specific case of the original writ petitioner that pursuant to office order no. 26, dated 31.12.2005, as contained in Memo No. 499, his appointment on contractual basis to the post of Computer Operator was made through the Selection Committee presided over by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj and the said post was duly sanctioned by the Jharkhand State Agriculture Marketing Board. He continuously worked without any break from 01.01.2006 to 01.10.2017. He was also awarded letter of appreciation by the authorities. He was also in the additional charge of Accountant and In-charge, Market Supervisor. It is case of the petitioner that without any notice, without assigning any reasons, the impugned order has been issued which is not tenable in the eyes of law. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 4. Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner was continuously working and discharging his duties without any complaint from any corner and letter of appreciation was also granted to him. Due to his efficient work, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahebganj – cum – Special Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee had also recommended his name for reinstatement in the Market Committee vide his letter dated 13.10.2017. The petitioner was dispensed with without any reasons and in utter violation of provisions of law. However, during pendency of the writ petition, the original writ petition died on 27.10.2018 and as such his wife Ananya Prasad filed interlocutory application for substitution of name of the original writ petitioner and in view of order dated 22.02.2023, she has been impleaded as writ petitioner in the instant writ petition. Learned counsel submits that appropriate direction may be issued RC 3 so that the widow would get the benefits. Learned counsel further argues that the Marketing Board has tried to improve his case by way of filing counter affidavit, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of catena of decisions and as such, counter affidavit filed by the Marketing Board may be rejected. 5. Drawing attention towards order dated 22.02.2023, learned counsel further argues that a sympathetic view may be taken in the instant case and the widow may be granted the dues against provide fund, gratuity, arrears of salary and other legal dues and she may be adjusted against any post. Learned counsel further argues that after hearing the parties in I.A. No. 1358 of 2019, a clear observation has been made by the Court to the effect that “…. … if ultimately the dismissal order is declared to be illegal, the applicant i.e. wife of the original petitioner can claim for compensation”. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 6. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh assisted by Mr. Shivam Singh, appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand State Agriculture Marketing Board vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that reasons have been explained in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel further submits that from perusal of counter affidavit it will appear that the impugned order is fully justified in view of policy decision of the respondents. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 7. From perusal of documents brought on record and the averments made in the writ petition as also arguments advanced by both the sides, I find that contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Marketing Board is not acceptable. The impugned orders cannot be improved by assigning reasons in the counter affidavit. It has clearly been held in the celebrated Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 as also in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. Chief RC 4 Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 and submits that impugned order cannot be improved by way of reasoning assigned in the counter affidavit. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16, has held in para 9 as under:- to referring “9. An attempt was made by the Commissioner’s affidavit to show that this was really an order of cancellation made by him and that the order was his order and not that of Government. We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actions and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” 9. Further, the same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vrs. Chief Election Commissioner, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, paragraph-8 of which reads as under:- “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought, out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji. Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actions and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. RC 5 Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” 10. In view of ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases and in view of judicial pronouncement of this Court in catena of decision and in view of law set at rest, I find impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law and as such the order no. 6, dated 25.09.2017, as contained in Memo No. 288, dated 29.09.2017, issued by the Market Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Sahebganj, terminating service of the deceased-petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside. Since the concerned employee has already died and as such it is open to the substituted petitioner (widow of the original writ petitioner) to file fresh representation before the concerned respondent. If such representation is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law and reasoned order shall be passed within a further period of eight weeks thereafter. 11. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC