Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Arun Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 26 August, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 60 of 2017
With
I.A. No. 6188 of 2017
Dr. Arun Kumar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Das, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Ms. Omiya Anusha, Advocate
---
09/26.08.2022
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
I.A. No. 6188 of 2017
2. The office note reflects that although I.A. No. 6188 of 2017
(Limitation Petition) has been filed, but the question of limitation does
not arise in view of the fact that the order under review was passed
under writ jurisdiction.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that otherwise also,
there is not much delay in filing the present review petition and no
parallel right has been created in favour of anyone.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has no serious objection to
the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering
the office note, this Court finds that although I.A. No. 6188/2017 for
condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioner, but the review
arises out of order passed in writ jurisdiction, there is no question of any
prescribed period of limitation to file review petition. However, this
Court finds that there is not much delay in filing the present review
application and the conduct of the petitioner does not suffer from any
delay and latches. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6188/2017 is closed.
Civil Review No. 60 of 2017
6. This review application has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"That the present application is for review of part of the
order and judgment dated 06.09.2016 passed by Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Pramath Patnaik in W.P. (S) No. 4702 of 2013
whereby and where under this Hon'ble High Court has been
pleased to allow the writ application filed by Petitioner with
the following observation and direction: -
Quote
(IV) On the cumulative effect of the
aforesaid reasons stated hereinabove the impugned
order of removal dated 23.10.2013 vide Annexure-
30 and notification dated 25.10.2013 (Annexure-28)
are quashed and set aside and the respondents are
directed to reinstate the petitioner in services on the
post of Director, Science and Technology and the
petitioner shall be entitled to continuity of services
from the date of termination/removal till its
reinstatement and the said period shall be counted
towards pensionary benefits except arrears of
salary of the said period.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands
allowed."
Arguments of the petitioner
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in
the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4702/2013, had challenged the show
cause notice dated 11th July, 2013 and for quashing of the enquiry report
of the High Level Enquiry Committee dated 23.03.2013 and had prayed
for allowing the petitioner to continue on the post of Director,
Department of Science and Technology. During the pendency of the writ
petition, the petitioner was removed vide order dated 23.10.2013 and
consequently, the petitioner amended the writ petition and the order of
removal was also challenged by filing interlocutory application which
was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2014. The learned counsel submits
that the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4702/2013 was ultimately
allowed vide order dated 06.09.2016, wherein the order of removal dated
23.03.2013 (Annexure-30 in the writ petition) was set-aside. The learned
counsel submits that while setting-aside the order of removal dated
23.03.2013 and consequent notification dated 25.10.2013, the
respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service on the post
of Director, Science and Technology and it was observed that the
petitioner shall be entitled to continuity of service from the date of
termination/removal till its reinstatement and the intervening period shall
be counted towards pensionary benefits except arrears of salary of the
said period.
8. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is governed by the
Jharkhand Service Code and as per Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service
Code, when a government servant is fully exonerated, he is entitled to
entire salary. The learned counsel submits that the learned writ court,
who allowed the writ petition, has not considered the Rule 97 of
Jharkhand Service Code and the order under review denying the arrears
of salary for the period from date of termination till date of reinstatement
is a non-speaking order, as no reason has been assigned for denying the
arrears of salary.
9. However, during the course of argument, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed the writ records and it is not in dispute that no
consequential relief regarding arrear of salary etc. was prayed for by the
writ petitioner in the writ petition nor any plea was made by the
petitioner in the writ petition regarding the fact that the petitioner was
not gainfully employed elsewhere.
10. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
review petition he has made a statement that the petitioner was not
gainfully employed elsewhere during the said intervening period.
Arguments of the respondents
11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while
opposing the prayer has submitted that no grounds for review is made
out. There is no error apparent on the face of records and this Court had
exercised the power in the interest of equity and justice and has held that
the petitioner deserved to be reinstated in service. The learned counsel
submits that the power in the writ petition has been exercised under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the consequences of
reinstatement has also been directed by the learned writ court. She
submits that the present petition does not fall within the scope of review
application. She also submits that even during the course of hearing, as is
apparent from the writ order, no argument was advanced claiming any
arrears of salary. She has relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in
Civil Review No. 45/2020 dated 05.02.2021 to submit that there is no
merit in this review petition and therefore it is fit to be dismissed.
12. Arguments concluded.
13. Post this case for judgment on 17th October, 2022.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
