Santu Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1467 Jhar

                                     1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    W.P.(S) No. 2763 of 2009
     1. Santu Kumar Yadav.
     2. Chandra Kishore Mishra.
     3. Parmeshwar Baraik.
     4. Musafir Singh.
     5. Dahesh Mahto.                             ..... Petitioners
                            Versus
     1. The State of Jharkhand.
     2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
        Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
     3. Director (Secondary Education), Human Resources
        Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
     4. Regional    Deputy     Director   of   Education,    South
        Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi.
     5. District Education Officer, Ranchi. .....   Respondents
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to G.P.II

---------

8/Dated: 23rd March, 2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by

the petitioners praying therein for quashing the order as

contained in Memo No. 1463 dated 13.05.2009 (Annexure-

10); whereby the respondent no.2 have directed the

petitioners to refund the amount of salary paid to them.

3. Mr. A.K.Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner

draws attention of this Court towards the order passed in

the case of Arti Thakur & Ors. Vs. the State of

Jharkhand & Others reported in 2010 (3) JCR 418 and

submits that the impugned order in the instant case has

already been quashed in the case of Arti Thakur (Supra)

which appears from paragraph 7 of the said judgment.

He further submits that the State has challenged the

aforesaid order in L.P.A. No. 504 of 2010 which was also

dismissed and the order passed in the case of Arti Thakur

(Supra) has attained finality.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts, Mr. Sahani submits

that since the impugned order itself has been quashed in

similar writ application; same benefit shall be extended to

these petitioners after quashing of the impugned order.

5. Mr. Aditya Raman, learned counsel for the

respondent-State fairly submits that the order dated

13.05.2009 passed by the Secretary Human Resources

Department has been quashed in the case of Arti Thakur

(Supra) and the same has attained finality after dismissal

of LPA No. 504 of 2010.

6. In view of the admitted facts; since the impugned

order which has been assailed in the instant writ

application has already been quashed in the writ

application filed by similarly situated employees and the

same has attained finality; the impugned order as

contained in Memo No.1463 dated 13.05.2009 (Annexure-

10), whereby the petitioners were directed to refund the

amount of salary, is, hereby quashed and set aside.

The respondents are hereby directed to extend same

and similar benefits what has been given to the petitioners

of the case of Arti Thakur (Supra) and refund the amount

within a period of four months as has been done in the case

of petitioners of Arti Thakur (Supra).

7. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ

application stands allowed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/