Dr. Paras Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A. No. 736 of 2023 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, P.O. and P.S. -Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana, P.O. and P.S.- Dumka, Dumka. 3. District Education Officer, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara, District – Jamtara. 4. District Superintendent of Education, P.O. & P.S. -Jamtara, Jamtara. 5. Sub-Divisional Educational Officer, P.O. & P.S.-Jamtara, District- Jamtara 6. District Treasury Officer, P.O. & P.S. -Jamtara, Jamtara …Appellants Versus 1. Shivchandra Kumar, s/o late Baidyanath Singh, resident of Rasikpur Bagan, College Road, P.O., P.S. & District-Dumka. 2. The Accountant General, P.O. and P.S.-Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand ----- …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Legal Reasoning
We are satisfied with the cause shown by the appellants-State in this application and, therefore, the delay of 329 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. 3. I.A. No. 11737 of 2023 is, accordingly, allowed. L.P.A. No. 736 of 2023 4. The State of Jharkhand is in appeal against the order dated 22nd December 2022 passed in WP(S) No. 6393 of 2016. 5. The writ Court referred to the decisions in “Dr. Paras Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar” 1990 (2) PLJR 248 and “Suryadeo Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand and Others” 2010 (3) JCR 238(Jhar.) and formed an opinion that the respondent herein is entitled for enhanced salary from 15th November 2000 to 31st December 2006 on his promotion in Class-II. Consequently, the writ Court issued a direction to the respondent-authorities for refixing the pension payable to him and for payment of arrears of salary on account of difference in salary. The writ Court in its order dated 22nd December 2022 held as 6. under: “In light of the above facts and submission of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is no fault on part of the petitioner. The plea of the State that petitioner has been granted notional promotion but he is not entitled for any monetary benefits, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Notional promotion is one which a Government servant gets under particular exigencies of situation, which he cannot claim as a right. Moreover, Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Financial Rules of the Government of Jharkhand have been considered by the Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Paras Nath (Supra) and the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suryadeo Prasad (Supra).
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR -------- For the Appellant-State For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-II Ms. Nirupama, AC to Sr. SC-II : Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate -------- 12th June 2024 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. I.A. No. 11737 of 2023 This interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 329 days in preferring the present appeal. 2.
Decision
As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the writ petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to fix the salary and pay difference of salary and allowances, pension, gratuity etc. payable to the petitioner on the basis of such determination, as prayed in the instant writ petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The writ petition accordingly allowed.” 7. As noticed above, the writ Court referred to “Dr. Paras Nath Prasad” and “Suryadeo Prasad” to come to a conclusion that the bar under Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Financial Rules of the Government of Jharkhand cannot be applied in the fact-situation obtaining in the present case. However, Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned Sr. SC-II endeavored to join issue on the point that the decision in “Dr. Paras 2 LPA No. 736 of 2023 Nath Prasad” and “Suryadeo Prasad” were rendered in different facts and situations and therefore cannot be applied in the present case to grant similar benefit to the respondent. 8. Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned Sr. SC-II further submits that in “Ajay Chandra Dhar v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and Others” 2007 SCC OnLine Jhar 416 on which heavy reliance was placed by the respondent before the writ Court monetary benefit was given to him from the date of the judgment and not from the date Ajay Chandra Dhar was granted notional promotion. 9. We are unable to record our agreement with the submissions made by the learned State counsel for several reasons. Firstly, the State of Jharkhand which granted notional promotion to the respondent w.e.f. 15th November 2000 must be held to have admitted that the respondent was entitled to promotion in Class-II with effect from such a date. Now this is not a case pleaded by the State of Jharkhand that promotion to the respondent could not be granted on account of any laches or delaying tactics of the respondent. Secondly, the State of Jharkhand which delayed promotion to the respondent for more than six years cannot be permitted to take a stand that the respondent who did not discharge his duty as Class-II cannot claim higher salary. Thirdly, Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Financial Rules of the Government of Jharkhand which provide that financial benefit to a government servant shall be given to him from the date he assumes the charge of the promoted post shall have no bearing on the claim raised by the respondent inasmuch as the arbitrary action of the State of Jharkhand in not granting promotion to the respondent from the due date shall overcome the bar under the aforementioned provisions in the Service Code and the Financial Rules. We may further add that the bar under Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Financial Rules of the Government of Jharkhand are binding on the Administrative Officers of the State of Jharkhand and not on the Courts. 10. As to the order passed in “Ajay Chandra Dhar”, we may only indicate that this is not the law laid down in the said case that financial 3 LPA No. 736 of 2023 benefit to a government employee who was given notional promotion from a back date can be only from the date of judgment. 11. This is well remembered that a judgment is an authority to what it decides and every observation made in a judgment is not a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India [refer, “Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Ors.” (2004) 10 SCC 65]. The writ Court exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not be bound by any technicalities. In “Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani” (1989) 2 SCC 691, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under; “22. …The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available “to reach injustice wherever it is found”. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226.…” 12. Having found so, L.P.A. No. 736 of 2023 bereft of any merit is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) VK/Tanuj 4 LPA No. 736 of 2023