Jharkhand High Court
Sant Kumar Ramdas vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 1 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 2827 of 2020
------
Sant Kumar Ramdas ...... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharhand,
Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy
Development, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building,
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
4. Regional Deputy Director, Department of School Education and Literacy
Development, Dumka.
5. District Superintendent of Education, Godda.
6. Deputy Commissioner, Godda. .... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing.
-----
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Suraj Prakash, AC to G.P-II.
------
03/01.07.2021: The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which
has been held through video conferencing today at 11:00 A.M. They have no
complaint in respect of the audio and video clarity and quality.
2. Heard the counsel for the parties.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the
respondent authorities to consider the period i.e. from 12.1.1985 to 7.10.1994 (the
period in which the petitioner was out of service) for the purpose of calculating
gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral benefits and thereafter the retiral
benefits of the petitioner should be revised.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's service was
terminated/cancelled on 12.1.1985 on account of illegality and irregularity, which
was committed in the selection process. He further submits that after a long battle in
court, the petitioner and others were granted relief in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
No. 11699 of 1990 and its analogous cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
vide order dated 7.2.1991. He also submits that in terms of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, fresh selection process was started and
thereafter, the petitioner was re-appointed/reinstated on 7.10.1994. He further
submits that after serving the department, the petitioner superannuated on
31.5.2018 as a teacher. He also submits that the retiral benefits of the petitioner
was paid but the period during which the petitioner was out of service i.e. from
12.1.1985 to 7.10.1994 was not considered. He also submits that for the purpose of
calculating his gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral benefits, in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, the petitioner was a party, the said
period should have been considered by the respondent authorities and post retiral
benefits should have been paid accordingly.
5. Counsel for the State submits that the entire appointment process of
the petitioner and others was illegal as a result of which, the appointment of the
petitioner and others was cancelled. He further submits that the petitioner
unscrupulously and in connivance with headmaster got his attendance marked and
fraudulently received salary and increments. Counsel for the State admits that the
petitioner was re-appointed on 7.10.1994 i.e. after the proper advertisement,
published in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He
also submits that the said appointment was a fresh appointment and thus for the
period when the petitioner was out of service, as per respondents, i.e. from
12.1.1985 till 7.10.1994, the petitioner is not entitled to receive any benefits
including all retiral benefits. Counsel for the State admits that all retiral benefits of
the petitioner has been paid.
6. On query, the counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was
appointed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Special
Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 11699 of 1990, in which the petitioner was a party, and
therefore, the case of the petitioner is governed by the aforesaid judgment, as a
result of which, the petitioner was re-appointed on 7.10.1994.
7. The issue as to whether the petitioner was appointed illegally or
irregularity, need not be considered in this application in view of the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in which the dispute was put at rest.
As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (Annexure-3), the State
had initiated fresh proceeding in respect of appointment of the petitioner and others.
Admittedly, the petitioner got appointment. While going through the Judgment dated
7.2.1991 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) No. 11699 of 1990, in which the petitioner was a party, as admitted by
respondent also, I find that the second last paragraph reads as under:
"Those of the teachers who have served in the past but there
has been a break in service on account of termination shall
have the credit of past service both in regard to the payment
of salary as also seniority and other service benefits."
8. As per the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
the teachers who had served in past and there was break in service on account of
termination shall get the credit of past service in respect of payment of salary and
also seniority and other benefits. This clearly suggests that the period which the
petitioner and others had served prior to termination of their services should be
considered for the purpose of calculating seniority and other service benefits.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and from the
pleading of the parties, it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed on
16.4.1983 and thereafter because of illegality, the apportionment was cancelled with
effect from 12.1.1985. Admittedly, the petitioner worked from 16.4.1983 till
12.1.1985. Thus in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this period
should be considered by the respondent authorities while calculating the post retiral
benefits of the petitioner.
10. In this case, the petitioner has prayed to calculate the period, during
which he was not in service i.e. the period of dismissal/removed, till his fresh
appointment. By virtue of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the said period i.e.
from 12.1.1985 till 7.10.1994, as the petitioner was not in service, which is apparent
from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The period in which the petitioner had worked,
i.e. from 16.4.1983 (initial appointment) till 12.1.1985 (removal from service) only
should be considered for calculating his post retiral benefits.
11. Thus, I direct the respondent authorities to consider the period during
which the petitioner was in service prior to dismissal i.e. 16.4.1983 till 12.1.1985 for
calculation of post retiral benefits of the petitioner. If the petitioner is entitled to get
any monetary benefit after taking into consideration the aforesaid period, the same
should be re-calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands
disposed of.
Anu-CP-2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
