Jharkhand High Court
Balmiki Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 3 February, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 87 of 2021
Balmiki Singh ..... ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Principal Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. Secretary, Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
6. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Ranchi.
...... ..... Respondents.
WITH
W.P.(S) No. 52 of 2021
Satyendra Narayan Singh ..... ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Principal Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. Secretary, Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
6. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Ranchi.
...... ..... Respondents.
WITH
W.P.(S) No. 134 of 2021
Dilip Kumar Sinha ..... ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Industry Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
...... ..... Respondents.
WITH
W.P.(S) No. 2313 of 2021
with
I. A. No. 7548 of 2021
1. Akhilesh Sharma.
2. Bhim Prasad.
3. Gauri Shankar Kapardar.
4. Jagdish Sahu.
5. Binay Kumar Verma.
6. Pradeep Xalxo
7. Ramchandra Prasad Barnwal
8. Rajesh Kumar ..... ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasa Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2
4. Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. ...... ..... Respondents.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
(Through Video Conferencing)
------
For the Petitioners : M/s Rajendra Krishna, Ritu Kumar,
Neetu Krishna, Amit Sinha,
Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Shatakshi &
Chandana Kumari, Advocates
For the Resp.-State : M/s Neelam Tiwari, Sr. S.C.-II
Ashok Kumar Yadav, G.A.-I
Gaurav Abhishek, AC to AG
For the Resp.-JPSC : Mr. Pravin Pandey, Advocate
-----
8/ 03.02.2022 Since the issues involved in all these writ petitions are same and
similar and as such, they have been heard together and are being disposed of
by this common order.
2. Heard the parties.
3. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are mainly aggrieved
by the Memo No. 6752, dated 24.12.2020, issued by the Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha,
Government of Jharkhand, whereby, it has been informed to the Principal
Secretaries / Secretaries and Heads of all the Departments that promotion in
all services and posts of the State Government should be stopped with
immediate effect till further decision.
4. In W.P.(S) No. 87 of 2021 and W.P.(S) No. 52 of 2021,
petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to notify the
order of promotion in view of the fact that Board of Director General of
Police has already recommended their names on 28.09.2020 to the State
Government for notification of order of promotion.
5. In W.P.(S) No. 134 of 2021 and W.P.(S) No. 2313 of 2014,
prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to immediately
and forthwith hold the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee,
which is not being held due to the order impugned dated 24.12.2020 and
consider their cases for promotion.
6. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the issue involved in all these writ petitions is now no
more res integra and these are squarely covered by the order dated
13.01.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1390 of 2021 and other analogous cases by
this Hon'ble Court and as such, these cases may be disposed of in terms of
orders passed in the aforesaid cases. Learned counsel further argues that since
the impugned order has already been quashed and set aside, a direction may
be given upon the respondents to consider the case of the present petitioners
also for promotion.
7. Per contra, counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the
respondents. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents very fairly submits that issues involved in this writ petition has
already been decided by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No.1390 of 2021 and
other analogous cases and if the cases of the petitioners are found same and
similar to the cases of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.1390 of 2021 and other
analogous cases, the petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits.
8. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since the impugned
notification contained in Memo No. 6752 dated 24.12.2020 has already been
quashed and set aside by this Court vide order 13.01.2022 passed in W.P.(S)
No.1390 of 2021 and other analogous cases, there is no requirement for
passing a fresh order on the same impugned order.
9. Under such circumstances, let these present writ petitions be
treated as representation of the petitioners and the petitioners are directed to
approach the respondents with a copy of their respective writ petitions and a
copy of this order and with any other document on which they are relying
upon, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. On receipt of the same, the respondents are directed to consider the
case of the petitioners and pass a speaking order assigning valid and concrete
reason for consideration /non-consideration of the case of the petitioners for
promotion, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter.
10. Needless to say that respondents shall verify the factual aspects
/issues involved in the these writ petitions vis-à-vis factual aspects/issues
involved in W.P.(S) No.1390 of 2021 and other analogous cases and if the
facts/issues involved in these writ petitions are found to be similar to the
aforementioned writ petitions, the same benefits as mentioned in para-34 of
the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 1390 of 2021 may be extended to the
present writ petitioners also, in accordance with law, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. With the aforesaid directions, these writ petitions stand disposed
of. Consequently, I.A. No. 7548 of 2021 filed in W.P.(S) No. 2313 of 2021
also stands disposed of.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
R.Kr.
