Jharkhand High Court
Sushil Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1590 of 2015
1. Sushil Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh
2. Ram Bahadur Singh, S/o Sri Bijeshwar Singh
3. Ranjit Kumar, S/o Yugul Kishore Singh
4. Harishetandra Srivastava, S/o Late Vasudev Narayan
5. Satyendra Kumar S/o Shree Mahabir Rawat
6. Arun Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Nathuni Singh,
7. Chinta Devi, D/o Kamla Prasad
8. Hiralal Singh, S/o Sri Jagdish Singh
9. Raj Kishore Singh, S/o Boga Singh
10.Shambhu Sharma, S/o Late Kameshwar Prasad Singh
11.Suresh Prasad, S/o Late Nandkeshwar Prasad
12.Akhilesh Kumar, S/o Late Ramcharitar Prasad
13.Satyendra Prasad, S/o Sri Brij Nandan Prasad
14.Chotelal S/o Late Surajdeo Rai
15.Sarvendra Kumar, S/o Awadh Bihar Singh
16.Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, S/o Sarju Prasad Singh
17.Shrawan Kumar, S/o Shri Sukan Mahot
18.Md. Jafar Eqbal, S/o Md. Ali Malik
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Health and
Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Director-in-Chief Health Service, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi,
P.O. + P.S. Namkum, Dist.-Ranchi
4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Palamu at
Daltonganj, P.O. + P.S. Daltanganj, Palamau
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Raj vardhan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar, Advocate
---
09/10.10.2022 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"For issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the service of the
petitioners with back wages in view of the judgment and order passed
by Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC. No. 6575 of 2009 and its
analogous case whereby the Hon'ble Court was pleased to quash the
order of termination and the petitioners being terminated by the same
impugned order of termination is entitled for similar relief and grant
him other consequential relief for which the petitioners are entitled in
accordance with law."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has
fairly submitted that the case of the petitioners is covered by the
judgment passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 7427 of 2016 dismissed
on 22.02.2022. The learned counsel submits that only difference is
that in the said case, the petitioners had challenged the order rejecting
their claim of reinstatement and a prayer was made directing the
respondents to reinstate the said petitioners in service with back wages
in view of the judgment dated 06.10.2009 passed by Hon'ble Patna
High Court in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 wherein the order by which
the petitioners of the said case were terminated, was quashed and in
the instant case the petitioners are seeking a mandamus respondents
to reinstate the said petitioners in service with back wages in view of
the judgment dated 06.10.2009 passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court
in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009. It is submitted that the case of the present
petitioners with regards to appointment and termination is on the same
footing as that the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 7427 of 2016 which has
been dismissed on 22.02.2022.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has
submitted that in view of the order passed by this court on 22.02.2022
in W.P. (S) No. 7427 of 2016, no relief as prayed for by the petitioners
may be granted, as the case of the present petitioners is that of
unauthorized appointment as the initial entry of the petitioners itself
was unauthorized.
5. Since it is not in dispute that from the side of learned counsel
for the petitioners that initially entry of the petitioners was
unauthorized and the case of the petitioners with regards to
appointment and termination is similar to that of the case of the
petitioners of W.P. (S) No. 7427 of 2016 which has been dismissed on
22.02.2022, no relief as prayed for by the petitioners can be granted in
this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
6. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
