Jharkhand High Court
Kalyan Tiwary vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 4 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4917 of 2012
1. Kalyan Tiwary, son of late Yadunandan Ram Tiwary, Resident of
Village - Pandra, P.O. - Pali, P.S. - Ratu, District - Ranchi
2. Ashren Khalkho, daughter of - Ashaph Khalkho, Resident of
Village - Chiter Kota, P.O. - Pali, P.S. - Ratu, District - Ranchi
3. Yashoda Kumari @ Yashoda Devi, Daughter of - Morha Oraon,
Resident of Village - Pali, P.O. - Pali, P.S. - Ratu, District -
Ranchi ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Health
Medical Education and Family Welfare Govt. of Jharkhand at
Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi
2. The Director - in - chief, Health Services, Govt. of Jharkhand,
officiating at Directorate Health Services, Jharkhand Namkum,
P.O. & P.S. - Namkum District - Ranchi Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Dev, A.C. to S.C. (L&C) III
---
06/04.07.2022 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"i) For quashing of order dated 01.10.2011 vide Memo no. -
2613 (ii) Ranchi as contained in Annexure - (9) to this writ
application passed by the Director in Chief, Health Services, Govt. of
Jharkhand by which the representation filed by the petitioners in
terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court in W.P.S. No.5629 of
2011, has been rejected only on the ground of an opinion of the
learned Advocate General, Jharkhand that the judgment of the
Hon'ble Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No.-6575/2009 dated
6.10.2009 is not binding upon the state of Jharkhand without
considering the fact of the Hon'ble Court, while disposing of the writ
application bearing W.P.S. No.-5629/10 has been categorically
directed that the reasoned / speaking order ought to have been passed
on the representation made by the petitioners, but no such reasoned /
speaking order has been passed in the impugned order rather the
claim of the petitioners has been rejected only on the ground of an
opinion of the learned Advocate General without considering the fact
that these petitioners were appointed way back where there is no
bifurcation of state by erstwhile State of Bihar and similarly situated
persons, who are appointed along with the petitioners, but after
bifurcation they remained in the state of Bihar and the order passed
by the Hon'ble Patna High Court number of persons has been
reinstated in the service, but the petitioners were remained in the
newly created state i.e. State of Jharkhand, they have not been
reinstated and only on the ground of opinion of the learned Advocate
General, the case of the petitioners cannot be discriminated with other
similarly situated who has been already reinsted by the State of Bihar.
ii) For issuance of a direction upon the respondents not to give effect
the order impugned dated 01.10.2011 as contained in Annexure (9) to
this writ application in view of the fact that the opinion is not a law
and the respondents are bound to give reasoned order for not
reinstating the petitioners when the similarly situated in the State of
Bihar have already been reinstated who were appointed in the similar
passion as that of these petitioners and they have also been terminated
in the year 1993.
iii) For issuance of a direction upon the respondents to abide
the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ashwani
Kumar" case as the state has not followed the directives given by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar case which is also in
respect to the similarly situated like petitioners and the Hon'ble Patna
High Court as well as State of Bihar has followed the direction given
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the State of Jharkhand is sitting
tight over the matter since long and not followed the order passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(iv) For issuance of a direction upon the respondents for
treating the case of the petitioners equally and identically as that of
counter part State of Bihar and in terms of order passed by the
Hon'ble Patna High Court and given similar benefit to the petitioners.
v) For issuance of a direction upon the respondents to reinstate
the petitioner in a service with all consequential benefits."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset has submitted
that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered against
the petitioners by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No.27
of 2004 with W.P.(S). No.3077 of 2007 decided on 07.03.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the
aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioners.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this writ petition is
dismissed in terms of the order dated 07.03.2022 passed by this Court
in W.P.(S). No.27 of 2004 with W.P.(S). No.3077 of 2007.
6. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
