Rahul Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 884 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                L.P.A. No. 34 of 2019
             Rahul Kumar Gupta                                       ---    Appellant
                                                Versus
             1. The State of Jharkhand
             2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Ranchi
             3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar.
             4. The Conservator of Forests, Buffer Areas, Palamau.
             5. The Regional Director, Tiger Project, Daltonganj, Dist.Palamau
             6. The Forest Range Officer, Mahuatand Forest Area, Latehar
             7. The Forester, Mahuatand Forest Area, Latehar         ---    Respondents

             CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
                          Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
                                                     ---

For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents :

---

07/07.03.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad.

2. Petitioner is the appellant being aggrieved by dismissal of Writ Petition (S) No. 2666 of 2015 by the impugned judgment dated 11.12.2018. Under challenge was the Office Order no. 21 dated 29.05.2015 passed by Chief Conservator of Forests-cum-Regional Director, Palamau, whereunder the claim of the petitioner for disbursement of arrears of remuneration was rejected. Annexure-7 was passed by Chief Conservator of Forests-cum-Regional Director, Tiger Project, Daltonganj upon direction of learned Writ Court in the previous writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5593 of 2013 by order dated 24th March, 2015. Admittedly, beyond Annexure-3, which is a certificate of Forester, Mahuatand on 26th February 2015 to the effect that between 19.09.2011 to 25.02.2015 petitioner was working in temporary capacity in Mahuatand Range Office, Range. There is no other document such as muster roll or any attendance-sheet, which could show that petitioner indeed worked during that period. Learned Writ Court took into account the claim of the petitioner that he was under deputation from 19 th September, 2011 to 26th September, 2011 as evident from Annexure-7 under Range Officer, Mahuatand, but in the absence of any proof of actual performance of work as daily wager during that period, it refused to interfere in the order of rejection dated 29th May, 2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the facts and drawn attention of this Court to Annexure-3 and Annexure-7 and submitted that petitioner's remuneration still remain dues.

4. We find it difficult to accept this contention in the absence of any proof or document of actual performance of the daily wager. It could also be difficult

to accept that for four long years, petitioner worked as daily wager without any remuneration. The issue raised by the appellant is on disputed questions of fact, on which learned Single Judge has taken view which cannot be said to be erroneous calling for our interference in the appeal for taking a substitute view in the matter.

The appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Deepak Roshan,J) jk/