Jharkhand High Court
Shivendu Pathak vs The State Of Jharkhand & Another on 4 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Review Jurisdiction)
Civil Review No. 67 of 2020
Shivendu Pathak ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Another ..... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.
Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate.
For the Opp. Parties :
---------
06/Dated: 04/08/2022
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, both on the prayer for
condonation of delay of 119 days in preferring the instant review petition
made through I.A. No.4691 of 2022 and also on the main petition. The
petitioner has explained the delay on account of the pendency of the Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3626 of 2020 (Annexure-1) against the
impugned judgment dated 16.10.2019 passed in LPA No.342 of 2018.
Thereafter Covid-19 intervened and review petition was filed on 23.11.2020.
We are satisfied with the explanation furnished and accordingly, delay is
condoned.
I.A. No.4691 of 2022 is disposed of.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits vide reference to Annexure-3
Letter of appointment of the petitioner under the Central Water Commission
dated 05.05.1982 that Clause-2(v) shows that this was not an adhoc
appointment, rather on temporary post of Supervisor (Civil) with a probation
period of two years. The petitioner thereafter joined the services of the State
of Bihar on 25.07.1987 after participating in the recruitment exercise for the
post of Assistant Engineer through BPSC. He has also applied through
proper Channel for participating in the recruitment process. Therefore, the
reference to adhoc contractual service being counted for the purposes of his
length of service under the existing State of Bihar now under the State of
Jharkhand is an error, which is apparent on the face of record. Petitioner
would be entitled to count the period of service rendered under Central
Water Commission from where he was relieved after relinquishment of
charge to join on the post of Assistant Engineer under the State of Bihar. If
such period is counted, petitioner would be entitled to
further service benefits, such as 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP and consequential
pensionary benefits. He has superannuated in the year, 2014.
We have perused the impugned order and the relevant annexures relied
upon by the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the appeal
was dismissed taking note of the plea raised by the appellant/review
petitioner of counting of adhoc contractual service under the Central Water
Commission from 09.12.1981 till 1985 and the fact that the petitioner joined
the State of Jharkhand after being allocated thereto on bifurcation of the
parent State of Bihar on existing service conditions as where applicable in
the parent State of Bihar. Such plea of past service on contractual basis or
temporary basis were never granted by his original employer neither did he
raised such grievance before being allocated to the successor State of
Jharkhand. Section 73 of the Bihar Organization Act 'saves' the existing
service conditions of an employee. The petitioner approached this Court in
W.P.(S) No.2059 of 2014 apparently after retirement on 28.02.2014.
Considering all these facts and the applicability of Section 73 of the Act
to the case of the petitioner, the letters patent court did not find any error in
the impugned order of the learned single Judge.
After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
we do not find any such error, which requires review of the impugned
judgment.
Accordingly, the instant Civil Review Petition is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil-Rohit/
