Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 25 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5742 of 2011
1.Ashok Kumar Mishra
2.Arun Kumar
3.Mukesh Kumar
4.Sahdeo Rana
5.Birendra Bahadur Azad
6.Anil Kumar Pandey
7.Santosh Jha
8.Sanjay Kumar Singh
9.Ashok Kumar Pandey
10.Santosh Kumar Singh
11.Sunil Kumar
12.Jai Kumar Mishra
13.Aradhana
14.Keshwendra Singh
15.Rakesh Kumar ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project
Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O, P.S.& District-Giridih.
3. District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, P.O, P.S. &
District-Giridih.
4. Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Sharda
Girls Middle School, Pachamaba, Giridih.
5. Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Middle
School Karnpura, Giridih.
6. Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Middle
School, Gadi Srirampur, Giridih
7. Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Mahatma
Gandhi Middle School, Pachamba, Giridih.
8. Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Middle
School, Keshwari, Giridih.
9. Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Middle
School, Motileda, Giridih.
10. Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Middle
School Baddiha, Giridih.
11. Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Middle
School Suggasar, Giridih.
12. Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Middle
School Mangrodih,Giridih.
13. Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Middle
School Bandarkutti, Giridih.
14. Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Middle
School Mirjaganj, Giridih
15. Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Rani
Laxmi Bai Middle School, Giridih.
16. Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Balagi,
Giridih.
17. Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Middle
School Chandaroy, Giridih. ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Tarun Mahto, Advocate
---------
08/Dated: 25th 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 and setting
aside the Letter No. 1764 dated 10th October, 2010
(Annexure-9), whereby the respondent no.3 directed all the
Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Officers of Giridih
District to stop annual increment of all the teachers
appointed on compassionate ground immediately and to
realize/recover the excess amount in one lump sum and
report its compliance.
The petitioners has further challenged the
consequential letter bearing No. 1342 dated 17.08.2011
(Annexure-10).
3. Mr. A.K.Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the issue involved in the instant writ
application has already been decided and the same
impugned order has been quashed in the case of Niteshwar
Prasad Singh & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others
[W.P.(S) No. 6755 of 2011].
4. Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondent-State does not oppose the aforesaid contention
of the petitioner.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
looking to the prayer made in the instant writ application
and the judgment dated 19th August, 2017 passed in W.P.(S)
No. 6755 of 2011, it appears that the same impugned order
has been quashed and the respondents were directed to
refund the entire amount which has been recovered from
the petitioners of that case.
Para 6 and 7 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted
herein below:-
"6. The contention of the learned counsel for the
respondents that though the petitioners are entitled
for the regular salary meant for the teachers
possessing higher educational qualification but they
are not entitled for increments is not acceptable to
this court. The said contention of the learned
counsel is misconceived. It is not in accordance with
law. It the teachers are entitled for regular salary
there is no occasion why they are not entitled for
increments. The service condition itself shows that
teachers who are entitled for regular salary are also
entitled for increments unless they are stopped by
way of any proceeding against them. In the instant
case no such proceeding has been initiated. It is
only case of Rule 91 by which petitioners have been
deprived of salary and increment.
7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts,
rules, observations, guidelines and judicial
pronouncement, I hereby quash the order dated
16.02.2010 at Annexure-4, page 70, order dated
1.12.2010 at Annexure-8, page 75 as well as order
dated 15.09.2009 at Annexure-3, page 69 and as
the order of recovery has been made on the basis of
order dated 15.09.09 which has already been
quashed any recovery pursuant to that order is also
quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the
entire amount which has been recovered from the
petitioners, needless to say that in view of the
quashments of the aforesaid orders the petitioners
are entitled for regular salary as well as of
increments meant for the teachers possessing higher
educational qualification."
6. In view of the admitted position and since the issue
has already been decided and attained finality; the instant
writ application is also allowed and the impugned order as
contained in Letter No. 1764 dated 10th October, 2010 and
order dated 17.08.2011, is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to refund the entire
amount which has been recovered from these petitioners
and give the same similar benefit what has been given to
the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 6755 of 2011.
Since the matter is very old, the entire exercise shall
be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of
receipt/production of copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ
application stands allowed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
