Jharkhand High Court
Madhusudan Das vs State Of Jharkhand on 23 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 6642 of 2018
1. Madhusudan Das
2. Bijay Kumar Mohakud
3. Jyotibasu Barik..................... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy, Jharkhand
3. The Director (Primary Education), School Education & Literacy,
Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa
6. The Assistant Director, Provident Fund Directorate,
Jharkhand, Ranchi............ Respondent(s)
......
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
Through:-Video Conferencing
......
For the Petitioner : Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, GA-V
Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
......
5/23.07.2021 The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding,
which has been held through video conferencing today at 10.30 A.M. They
have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondents.
In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed to give
notional seniority to them only for the purpose of G.P.F. and other
Pensionary benefits. They are not claiming monetary benefits as wages for
the aforesaid period if their prayer is allowed.
The petitioners submit that their case is squarely covered by the
judgment passed by this Court in the case of "Harendra Kumar Ghosh & Anr-
versus- State of Jharkhand & Others, in W.P.S. No. 1352 of 2007", which has been
upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 446 of 2012. It is
further submitted that Special Leave to Appeal filed against the aforesaid
judgments was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed in October,
2005 though they were selected in the year 2003 itself and they had
already deposited the necessary documents for verification in the year
2003 itself. It is the case of the petitioners that because of the delay and
laches on the part of the respondent, the appointment letters were issued
to the petitioners belatedly in October, 2005 resulting in loss of the
seniority, which affected their post retiral benefits, i.e. the Gratuity and
Pension. Petitioners submits that when the similarly situated employees/
Teachers got the benefits by virtue of the aforesaid order passed by this
Court, the respondents should have extended the same benefits to these
petitioners also.
Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned G.A.-V submits that the petitioners
are the fence sitters and they are not entitled to get the said benefits as
they filed the writ application after much delay. He submits that in the
year 2011 itself this Court in the case of "Harendra Kumar Ghosh" (supra) had
decided the issue and had granted relief to those employees. These
petitioners should have approached this Court immediately or should have
approached the respondents, but they did not do so. He further submits
that there are several aspects, which are to be looked into individually and
then only a decision can be taken. He relies on a judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Chairman-cum-Managing Director, U.P.
Power Corporation Limited & Others -versus- Ram Gopal, in Civil Appeal No. 852 of
2020".
The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the State does not
fit to the facts of this case. In this case, admittedly, out of 577 successful
candidates, the appointment letters have been issued to these petitioners
and others belatedly, i.e. after two years, though they have deposited their
documents for verification in time. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in
W.P. (S) No. 1352 of 2007, considered the case of the similarly situated
persons and granted relief to them and directed the respondents to shift
the date of appointment of those petitioners notionally only for the purpose
of Gratuity and Pension. This order was upheld by the Division Bench of
this Court in LPA and ultimately, before Hon'ble the Supreme Court also
no relief was granted to the State. Thus, the issue was decided by this
Court in the writ application to the effect that if the documents were filed
within time and because of laches on the part of the State the appointment
letters were issued belatedly, then those persons should be granted the
benefit of notional seniority for the purpose of pensionary benefits and
Gratuity. Be it noted here that the petitioners are not seeking salary for
the aforesaid period.
Once this point has been set at rest by this Court and the same
has attained finality, it was expected by the State to grant and extend this
benefit to all the similarly situated persons. If similarly situated persons
have to approach this court to take benefits of similar order, it is nothing
but to force a person to litigation. This is not expected from the State. It is
the duty of the State to minimize litigation rather than multiply it. The
State should have undertaken an exercise to see as to whether any
employee who were appointed during that time are governed by the
aforesaid judgment or not and if it was found that they are governed by
the judgment, the said benefit should have been extended by the State to
the entitled employees also in terms of the order passed by this Court in
the case of "Harendra Kumar Ghosh" (supra) and which has been upheld up to
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But the State has not done so. The State
should act like a model employer and should not force its employees to
unnecessary litigation.
Considering what has been held above, I direct the petitioners to
file a representation before Respondent No. 2 within six weeks alongwith
all supporting documents to suggest that they are governed by the
judgment, passed by this Court in the case of "Harendra Kumar Ghosh"
(supra). If such representation is filed by the petitioners within the
aforesaid time, the concerned Respondent No. 2 is directed to take a
decision on the representation of the petitioners within eight weeks
thereafter.
If it is found by Respondent No. 2 that the petitioners are
governed by the aforesaid judgment, the benefit, which has been granted
to the petitioners of W.P.S. No. 1352 of 2007, should also be
granted/extended to these petitioners.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ application
stands disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J)
Mukund/-cp.2
