Imtiaz Imam vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3581 Jhar

                                       1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             W.P.(S) No.5244 of 2010
        1.     Imtiaz Imam
        2.     Mithlesh Kumar Pandey                     ...    ...    Petitioners
                                                  Versus
        1.     The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary,
               Ministry       of   Human              Resources    Development
               Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
        2.     Director,      Primary         and      Secondary     Education,
               Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
        3.     The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih.
        4.     The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.
                                                         ...    ... Respondents
                                            -------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

-------

For the Petitioner :Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, Adv.

Ms. Pinky Tiwari, Adv.

For the Res.State :Mr. Rahul Dev, A.C. to S.C.(L &C)III

-------

Through:- Video Conferencing

-------

10/23.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through

V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by

the petitioners praying therein for quashing of the impugned

order dated 08.04.2010, whereby the petitioners have been

reverted and the B.Sc trained scale granted to these

petitioners on their attaining the trained teachers

qualification has been withdrawn and direction has been

issued to recover the excess salary which was paid to them.

3. Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra assisted by Ms. Pinky Tiwari

learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue

involved in this case has already been decided in the case of

Arbind Bhushan Dey & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand &

Ors. passed in W.P.(S) No.1555 of 2003 and analogous

cases (Annexure-9) and submits that the instant writ

application may be disposed of by quashing the impugned

order by giving direction to the respondent to consider the

case of the petitioners for promotion/recovery in the light of

the order passed in the above referred case.

4. Mr. Rahul Dev, learned counsel for the

respondent-State submits that if these petitioners will

approach the concerned respondent along with the judgment

then their cases can be reconsidered. He further submits that

at present the petitioners are in service.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

the case; the instant writ application is, hereby, disposed of

by directing the petitioners to file representation/s along with

relevant documents/judgments in their favour before the

respondent No.3 within a period of Eight Weeks from today. If

any such representation/s is filed before the respondent

No.3, the same shall be considered in the light of the

judgment referred to hereinabove and also applicable rule,

notification of the Government within a period of 16 weeks

from the date of receipt of such representation/s.

6. It goes without saying that the respondent No.3

shall not be prejudiced by his earlier order whereby a

decision has been taken for recovery of amount. It is also

made clear that if the recovery has not been made till date

then the same shall be kept in abeyance till the final decision

is taken by a reasoned order.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ

application stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/-