Jharkhand High Court
Chandrashekhar Prasad Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 25 August, 2022
1 W.P.(S) No. 1244 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3327 of 2022
Chandrashekhar Prasad Sinha .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary -cum- Commissioner
Commercial Taxes, Ranchi.
2. The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration),
Jamshedpur.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Sale Tax, Jamshedpur.
.... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Ms. Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C.-III
Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. S.C.-III
-----
2/ 25.08.2022 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for
direction upon the respondents to extend the benefit of 1st, 2nd and 3rd
ACP/MACP, as the petitioner has rendered thirty-five years of service.
3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner,
after following due process, was appointed on Class-III post on 8.10.1980 against
the sanctioned and vacant post. Thereafter, the petitioner discharged his duty to
the full satisfaction of his Controlling Officer, wherever he was posted, till his
superannuation on 28.2.2015. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after
retirement, he has received the post retiral benefits, but the ACP benefits were
denied to him, though he has rendered almost forty years of service, on the
ground that his service has not been confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
4. Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
argues that the petitioner is entitled for ACP benefits, as he is continuously
working for thirty-five years on sanctioned and vacant post. The petitioner has
been extended the retiral benefits and as such, it cannot be said that his services
were not confirmed. Learned counsel further submits that the issue has already
been decided by this Court, as also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of
judgments that genuineness of service cannot be questioned after the employee
has retired and is receiving the pension in view of Rule 58 of the Pension Rules.
Learned counsel further submits that in a similar case, this Court in W.P.(S) No.
4631 of 2017 (Surendra Choudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors), directed the
respondents to pay the benefit of ACP/MACP as per entitlement. The aforesaid
propositions of law held in W.P.(S) No. 4631 of 2017, has been upheld by the
Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 171 of 2021 (State of Jharkhand &
Ors. Vs. Surendra Choudhary), decided on 18.10.2021, which has also been
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 5742 of
2022. Learned counsel further submits that in another matter, exactly the same
and similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1244 of
2021 (Janmjay Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), decided on
05.07.2022 and as such, this case may be disposed of in terms of orders passed in
the aforesaid cases.
5. Per contra, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondents. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
very fairly submits that issue involved in this writ petition has already been
decided by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 1244 of 2021, and if the case of the present
petitioner is found same and similar to the case of the petitioner in W.P.(S). No.
1244 of 2021, the present petitioner shall be given the same benefits.
6. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties, this writ application is being disposed of in terms of the direction issued
by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 1244 of 2021 and if the case of the present
petitioner is found same and similar to the case of the petitioner in W.P.(S). No.
1244 of 2021, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits.
7. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to verify
the factual aspects/ issues involved in the present writ petition vis-à-vis factual
aspects/ issues involved in W.P.(S). No. 1244 of 2021 and if the facts/ issues
involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned
writ petition, the same benefits shall be extended to the present writ petitioner
also, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed
of.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
R.Kr.
