Ramdhyan Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 204 Jhar

                          1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                 W.P. (S) No. 3943 of 2010

1. Ramdhyan Mishra, son of late Jouha Mishra, Resident of Social Forestry
   Division, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District- Singhbhum West,
   Jharkhand
2. Jagdish Narayan Verma, son of Late Shiv Dayal Verma, Resident of
   Baranimdih, P.O.-Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District-Singhbhum West
3. Ashok Kumar Sinha, son of late Shyam Narayan Prasad, Resident of
   Saranda State Trading Division, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, District-
   Singhbhum West
4. Om Prakash Ambastha, Son of Late Chandra Sekhar Prasad, Resident of
   Chaibasa, South Division, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S.-Sadar, District-
   Singhbhum West
5. Anjani Kumar Singh, son of Late Kamauda Prasad Singh, Resident of
   South Division, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District-
   Singhbhum West
6. Nikunj Bihari Mahto, Son of Sri Ram Krishna Mahto, Resident of
   Forest Colony, European Quarters, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District
   Singhbhum West
7. Jitendra Kumar, son of Late Bundi Choudhary, Resident of D.F.O.
   Office, Kolhan Division, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District Singhbhum
   West
8. Md. Ilyas Ansari, son of Late Abdul Rahim Ansari, Resident of Forest
   Colony, Qrt. No. 27, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District-Singhbhum West
9. Shyam Lal Soy, Son of Late Agar Singh Soy, Resident of South
   Division, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar District Singhbhum West
10.Gopal Pan, Son of Sri Sukhdeo Pan, Resident of South Division,
   Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District Singhbhum West
11.Jamadar Oraon, Son of Late Sukara Oraon, Resident of C.F. Southern
   Circle, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District-Singhbhum West
12.Binod Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Regishwari Prasad Sinha, Resident of
   Forest Colony, Near Police Line, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District-
   Singhbhum West
13.Degan Gope, Son of Late Bhawani Gope, Resident of C.P. Office,
   Southern Circle, Chaibasa, P.O.-Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District-
   Singhbhum West               ...     ...      ...     Petitioners
                         Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum, Kolhan Division, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S.
   Sadar, District-Singhbhum West
3. The Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment, Nepal House, P.O. and
   P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi
4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Forest Colony, P.O. and P.S.
   Doranda, District-Ranchi
5. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Jai Prakash Uddyan, P.O. and
   P.S. Adityapur, Jamshedpur, District-Saraikela-Kharsawan
6. The Conservator of Forest, Southern Circle, Near Police Line, P.O.
   Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District Singhbhum West
7. The Conservator of Forest, Afforestation and Social Forestry, Jai
   Prakash Uddyan, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur,
   District Saraikela-Kharsawan
8. The Conservator of Forest, Singhbhum State, Trading Circle, Jai
   Prakash Uddyan, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur,
                                        2

            District-Saraikella-Kharsawan                 ...     ...     Respondents
                                    ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, Advocate

Through Video Conferencing

9/02.02.2022

1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondents to confirm Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) to the petitioners from the date of joining who have been working in different posts in the Forest Department in the District of Singhbhum West. Further prayer has been made for quashing of letter dated 656 dated 27.02.2008 (Annexure-10) as well as letter No. 639 dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure-11), by which it has been said that the date of joining prior to issuance of appointment letter is not proper and as such the date of appointment letter will be treated as date of joining.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are altogether 13 writ petitioners and the case of all the writ petitioners stand on similar footing.

5. Learned counsel has referred to Annexure-1 series which relate to appointment letter of one Ram Dhyan Mishra, Petitioner No. 1. Learned counsel has submitted that the letter dated 26.05.1980 was issued to petitioner No. 1 asking him to join by 20.06.1980 with clear stipulation that if he does not join by 20.06.1980 offer of appointment will stand cancelled. It was also mentioned in the said letter that after joining, letter of appointment will be issued. Learned counsel submits that petitioner No. 1 accordingly joined on 17.06.1980 and thereafter vide memo No. 1078 dated 30.06.1980, formal letter of appointment was issued and in the letter of appointment also, the date of joining of the petitioner No. 1 was clearly mentioned as 17.06.1980. Learned counsel submits that similar is the situation with all the present writ petitioners whose details has been mentioned in para-6 of the present

writ petition.

6. Learned counsel submits that one similarly situated person namely David Angaria was granted the benefit of A.C.P. by treating his date of appointment as the date of joining and this fact has been mentioned in para-12 of the writ petition. He submits that the fact about grant of aforesaid benefit to David Angaria is not in dispute and the petitioners are praying for similar reliefs.

7. Learned counsel has referred to the impugned orders contained at Annexures-10 and 11 wherein a decision has been taken that the date of appointment letter is to be treated as the date of joining irrespective of the fact that incumbent may have joined the service prior to formal issuance of appointment letter. Learned counsel has also referred to Annexure-9 of the present writ petition to submit that such practice has been continuing in the department for the last 30 years and it has been mentioned in the said communication by the Commissioner Singhbhum (Kolhan Division) Chaibasa to the Secretary of the Forest and Environment Department, State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel submits that as the mode and method of appointment and joining has been done as per the various letters issued by the respondent themselves and the respondents have asked each of the petitioners to join within the stipulated time frame with a clear stipulation that letter of appointment will be issued after they join, the petitioners cannot be put at a loss by treating the issuance of date of appointment letter as the date of joining, although they have actually joined a couple of days prior to date of issuance of appointment letters to the respective petitioners as per the instructions of the Respondents and mentioned in the offer letters for appointment. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, present writ petition is fit to be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside and the date of joining of service by the petitioners be directed to be treated as date of appointment, although the appointment letter was issued after a couple of days.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand has referred to the counter affidavit and has submitted that with regards to all similarly situated persons whose appointment letters were issued subsequently, it has been clarified by letter dated 02.08.2007(Annexure-2) and decision has been taken to stop such

situation in future which has happened in the case of David Angaria. Learned counsel submits that in view of the letter dated 02.08.2007 which specifically deals with the case of David Angaria, the same benefit cannot be extended to the present petitioners as such practice has been discontinued. However, it is not in dispute that so far as David Angaria is concerned, he has been granted benefit of A.C.P. from the date of his joining and not from the date of issuance of his appointment letter which was issued subsequent to the date of his joining. Learned counsel has also referred to Annexure-1 series to the writ petition to submit that initial letter dated 26.05.1980 which was issued to the petitioner no. 1 was only an offer of appointment and not the appointment letter and the appointment letter having been issued subsequently, his appointment cannot be treated to be from the date of his joining pursuant to the offer of appointment. It is not in dispute that the case of each of the petitioners stand on similar footing.

9. Arguments of the parties are concluded.

10.Post this case for judgment on 04.02.2022.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/