Jharkhand High Court
K.S. Ganeshan vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 22 March, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 7725 of 2011
K.S. Ganeshan ..... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Food,
Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department,
having office at Project Building, P.O. And P.S. Dhurwa,
Town and District- Ranchi
2.The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of
Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, P.O and
P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District- Ranchi
3.The Secretary, Jharkhand State Consumer,
Disputes Redressal Commission, P.O. & P.S. Doranda,
Town and District- Ranchi ..... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
------
For the Petitioner : Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms.Vandana Sinha, AC to G.A.-V
------
09/ 22.03.2021 Heard through V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioner challenging the order dated 05.09.2011 whereby the
representation of the petitioner in the light of direction of this Court
dated 28.07. 2011 passed in W.P.(S) No.1301 of 2007, has been rejected.
3. Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that this petitioner had earlier moved before this Court
praying for a direction upon the respondents to pay difference of
salary @ last pay drawn minus the amount of pension being paid to
him and the consolidated salary of Rs.5500/- per month paid to the
petitioner till determination of the salary for the post of Personal
Assistant in Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he retired as senior
Accounts Officer from Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd.,
Dhurwa, Ranchi which is a Government of India undertaking under
the Ministry of Defence and he was engaged as Personal Assistant
(PA) in Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
on contractual basis. The said writ application was disposed of with a
direction to the Secretary Food, Supply and Commerce Department,
Government of Jharkhand to consider the representation along with
the recommendation of the Chairman of the Commission and pass a
speaking order. Para 10, 11, 12 of the order dated 28.07.2011 passed in
the earlier writ application being W.P.(S) No.1301 of 2007 is quoted
herein below:
"10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered the facts and materials on record. The
petitioners have claimed remuneration on the basis of
the Government Letter no.4569 dated 5th July, 2002
read with Letter no.60 dated 8th January, 2003 issued
by the Finance Department. Their representation was
highly recommended and forwarded by the chairman of
the Commission. The chairman in his detailed
recommendation has expressed his commendation about
these petitioners, stating that they are very sincere and
hard working. They are well experienced and they are
completely devoted to their assignment. They worked
till late night at their residence to complete the
judgments dictated in court as well as in chamber of the
Chairman. That shows their sincerity and dedication
towards their duties. He has further said that only by
their experience and hard work, the Commission could
function smoothly and Jharkhand State Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission stood first in the
country, so far as the disposal of the cases are
concerned.
11. It is an admitted position that in spite of the said
recommendation and forwarding of the petitioners'
representation by the chairman of the Commission, the
same is still pending and the Respondent no.2 has not
passed any speaking/reasoned order so far.
12. In view of the above, this writ petition is
disposed of, directing the Secretary, Food Supply and
Commerce Department, Government of Jharkhand-
Respondent no.2 to consider the petitioners'
representation along with the recommendation of the
Chairman of the Commission and pass speaking order
within two months from the date of receipt/production
of a copy of this order."
5. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant thereto this
petitioner filed a detailed representation on 23.08.2011 (Annexure-17),
but the claim of the petitioner was dismissed although similarly
situated persons are getting the same benefit in the State of Jharkhand.
On this argument of the petitioner, the State of Jharkhand was
directed to seek necessary instruction. Order dated 04.02.2021 reads as
follows:
"Heard Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms.Vandana Sinha, learned AC to
G.A.-V through V.C.
2. Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that similarly situated persons
are getting same benefit as prayed by the petitioner
in the instant writ application, however he has been
denied.
Further, the petitioner has taken specific
ground as ground No.5 in his representation filed
pursuant to the order of this Court. However, the
impugned order does not discuss the aforesaid
ground while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
Even the stand taken in paragraph 27 of the writ
application has not been replied specifically.
As such, the learned counsel for the
respondent State is directed to seek instruction
about the fact and the ground taken as ground No.5
in the representation which has not been taken care
in the impugned order also.
3. Put up this case on 12.03.2021 under the
heading for final disposal."
6. Thereafter, a supplementary counter affidavit has been
filed in which the stand of the respondent State has been clarified that
even the answering respondent is unaware that on what terms and
conditions the similarly situated person was appointed by the office of
Governor Secretariat. Para 6 of the supplementary counter affidavit
dated 16.03.2021 is quoted herein below:
"6. That it is most humbly stated and submitted
that with regard to the office order contained in memo
no.18.05.2005 (Annexure-19 of writ application) issued
by office of Governor's Secretariat, Jharkhand Ranchi,
whereby Sri Shashi Mohan Singh, who retired from
Heavy Engineering Corporation was being paid his last
pay drawn minus pension, it is humbly submitted that
the matter relating to Sri Shashi Mohan Singh is not
related at all with this department and the aforesaid
letter has not been issued by the office of answering
respondent which is evident from the Annexure 19 of
the writ application itself. Even the answering
respondent is totally unaware that, on what terms and
conditions the said Shashi Mohan Singh was appointed
by the Office of Governor's Secretariat. Hence, the said
averment requires no comments from the answering
respondent."
7. Having regards to the fact of the case that the petitioner
had taken specific ground as ground No.5 in his representation filed
pursuant to the order of this Court, however, the impugned order
does not discuss the aforesaid ground while rejecting the claim of the
petitioner. Even the same stand taken in para 27 of the writ
application was vaguely replied.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated
05.09.2011 (Annexure- 18) is quashed and set aside and the matter is
remitted back to the concerned respondent to take a fresh decision
after verifying the record of similarly situated person as in the
supplementary counter affidavit they have only stated that they are
unaware with regard to the terms and conditions of the similarly
situated person-Shashi Mohan Singh, who was appointed in the office
of Governor Secretariat and pass a fresh order within a period of 4
months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
If any amount is found payable after the fresh order; then
the same shall be paid to the petitioner within a further period of 6
weeks.
9. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ application
stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
