The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 487 of 2022 --------- The State of Jharkhand Through the Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Govt. Of Jharkhand Ranchi, At- Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. – Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. … … Petitioner/Appellant Versus Rahul Shankar, Son of Late Saryu Prasad Choudhary and Late Jailata Choudhary, Resident of Flat No. 1B, Sambhavi Kanti Raj apartments, Latma Road, P.O- Hatia, P.S.- Jaganathpur, District- …. …. Respondent/Petitioner Ranchi, (Jharkhand). --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Shubham Mishra, A.C. to S.C.(Mines)-II : ---------- 06/Dated: 13th August, 2024 I.A. No.4638 of 2023 -----------
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This application has been preferred by the appellant for impleading the original respondent no.3 the Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi as performa respondent in this appeal. On consideration of reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the respondent no.3 of the original writ- petitioner is impleaded as the performa respondent in the present memo of appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to do the needful.
Decision
4. This interlocutory application stands disposed of. I.A. No.4642 of 2023 5. This application has been preferred for substituting the original writ petitioner in the memo of appeal, who has died on 09.12.2021 which is prior to the filing of the appeal. 6. The original writ-petitioner is survived by his legal heir, details of which have been mentioned in paragraph 7 of the instant application. On consideration of the above, this application stands 2 allowed and the original writ-petitioner/sole respondent herein, is substituted by his legal heir as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the instant application. 7. Office is directed to do the needful. 8. This interlocutory application stands disposed of. I.A. No.4641 of 2023 9. This application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the delay of 109 days in filing of this appeal. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 109 days in filing this appeal is hereby, condoned. 10. This interlocutory application is disposed of. L.P.A. No. 487 of 2022 11. This appeal is directed against that part of the order dated 18.06.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. l537 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the period of the employee, which is treated as an extraordinary leave was quashed and set aside. 12. The writ petition was filed by Jailata Choudhary, wife of Late Saryu Prasad Choudhary who was appointed in the post of Block Development Officer, Barhet, Sahebganj in the year 1978-79 on the recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna. The husband of the writ-petitioner had met with an untimely death on 31.08.2006 and at the time of his death he was working as Assistant Director in the Office of the Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Ranchi. The writ-petitioner being aggrieved with the non-payment of the death-cum- retiral benefits of her husband was constrained to move this Court in the writ application wherein the same was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation and take a decision on the claim of the original writ-petitioner. This was followed by a contempt application, but during the pendency of the contempt application certain admitted dues were extended in favour of the original writ-petitioner. 13. The original writ-petitioner once again approached this Court in 3 W.P.(S) No. 1537 of 2015 with two fold prayers, the first being for quashing that part of the order as contained in Memo No.4821 dated 16.08.2011 passed by the Principal Secretary, Departmental Personnel, Administrative & Reforms, Government of Jharkhand wherein certain claim towards the payment of death-cum-retiral benefits standing in the name of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner was rejected with direction to reconsider the case of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner for payment of benefit under the ACP schemes. The second prayer was for quashing that part of the order by which certain period has been declared as extraordinary leave. The writ petitioner did not succeed in her first prayer with respect to the extending of ACP benefits on account of the fact that during the service period, the deceased husband of the writ petitioner had not passed the departmental examination, which was a pre-condition for the grant of ACP benefits. So far as the second prayer of the writ-petitioner is concerned, the same was with respect to certain periods in government service which was treated as extraordinary leave and the same having been allowed and that part of the order contained in memo No. 4821 dated 16.08.2011 was quashed. The State being aggrieved has preferred the present appeal. 14. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Shubam Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that treating some period of the service of the deceased husband of the writ-petitioner as an extraordinary leave was on account of the fact that there was break in service and there was no leave available to him and as such to regularize the service, it was necessary that the said period be treated as an extraordinary leave. 15. It appears that the period, which was treated as an extraordinary leave commences from 01.01.1999 to 07.06.1999, 27.03.2002 to 16.05.2002, 30.11.2002 to 24.10.2003 and from 01.07.2004 to 4 31.08.2005, and the learned Single Judge has rightly taken into consideration the fact that most of the period of leave was prior to two years of the death of the husband of the original writ-petitioner. The concerned Authorities did not take any decision on the same during his life time and it seems that only on account of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition preferred by the writ-petitioner with respect to the payment of death-cum-retiral benefits to her, steps were taken and the period was treated as an extraordinary leave. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the fact that the decision dated 16.08.2011 wherein the period was treated as extraordinary leave was after almost six years from the date of death of the husband of the original writ-petitioner. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, learned Single Judge therefore, had set aside that part of the order dated 16.08.2011 with a further direction to the Respondent-State to re-calculate the consequential financial benefits of the period which has been earlier treated as extraordinary leave by considering it as a regular service. 16. In view of the reasonings which have been assigned by the learned Single Judge by allowing a part of the prayer of the original writ- petitioner with respect to extraordinary leave, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.06.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1537 of 2015 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. 17. Pending interlocutory applications, if any stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Pappu-Amar/-