Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Anand Kumar Sinha & Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 21 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 589 of 2020
Dr. Anand Kumar Sinha & Ors. ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Sreenu Garapati, S.C.-III.
------
11/ 21.10.2022 Reference may be made to the order dated 22.04.2022,
wherein, it has been observed that by the resolution dated 21.01.2022, the
Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand has taken the decision to
enhance the age from 60 to 65 years with effect from the date of issuance
of the said resolution i.e. 21.01.2022.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in
view of such resolution, benefit to one of the petitioner has already been
given, however, rest two have been left out. He further submits that
pursuant to the writ court order, the decision has been taken belatedly and
on the ground of retrospectivity, the benefit has not been provided. He
further submits that so far as other petitioners are concerned, their right
cannot be discarded by the State considering that the resolution has been
passed belatedly.
3. On 05.08.2022, following order was passed, which is quoted
hereinbelow:-
"Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel for the
opposite party-State submits that all the opposite parties
have filed show-cause. However, opposite party no. 3 has
not filed show-cause. He seeks four weeks' time for filing
showcause on behalf of O.P. No. 3.
Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that opposite party no. 3 is concerned
department of the petitioners. He submits that there is no
occasion to other opposite parties to say that order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applied in the case of
these petitioners.
The writ petition was disposed of directing the
opposite parties to re-consider the case of the petitioners
for enhancing their age of superannuation from 60 to 65
years and Central Government Pay Commission was
subject matter in deciding the writ petition which has
been adopted by the Government of Jharkhand. In the
case of "North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr.
Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 4578 of
2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10156/2019)] the
Hon'ble directed that the decision of the enhancement of
age will govern retrospectively. In para 23 of the said
judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"23. The doctors, both under AYUSH and CHS,
render service to patients and on this core aspect,
there is nothing to distinguish them. Therefore, no
rational justification is seen for having different
dates for bestowing the benefit of extended age of
superannuation to these two categories of doctors.
Hence, the order of AYUSH Ministry (F. No. D.
14019/4/2016-E-I (AYUSH) dated 24.11.2017 must
be retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016 to all
concerned respondent-doctors, in the present
appeals. All consequences must follow from this
conclusion."
In view of such direction of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the opposite parties who have filed show cause,
are not required to say so that order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court is not applicable in the case of the
petitioners.
Further four weeks' time as prayed for, is allowed
to the O.P. No. 3 to come forward with compliance
report, failing which appropriate order will be passed on
the next date.
Let it appear after four weeks on the assigned
day."
4. A show cause has been filed pursuant to the order dated
05.08.2022, where in para-13 thereof, by way of quoting the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been observed by the authorities that
contempt jurisdiction cannot enhance the scope of relief, claimed in the
main proceeding. The contention made in para-13 of the said show cause,
this court is not disputing the said averment and the court is aware of the
restriction in the contempt proceeding. Further in the case in hand, benefit
to one of the petitioner has already been granted, however, rest has been left
out and if the decision is taken belatedly, the contention made in para-13 of
the show cause has not been accepted by this Court.
5. Reference may be made to the case of Promotee Telecom
Engineers Forum & Ors. versus D.S. Mathur, Secretary,Department of
Telecommunications, reported in (2008) 11 SCC 579, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-20 held as follows:-
"20. We are not impressed at all by the contention of
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent that since the respondent has passed the
orders disposing of the representations of the
petitioners, the only way left for the petitioners was
to challenge the same by way of an independent
Original Application before the Tribunal. It is more
than a decade that the petitioners are fighting for
their rights. Their rights had already been
crystallized by various orders passed by the
Tribunals and the courts which fact is not denied by
the respondent. On the top of it, the petitioners were
again required to come before this Court by way of
an Interim Application being IA No.16 and that has
resulted in denial of the fruits of the orders which
were passed in their favour by the Tribunals and the
courts. Under such circumstances, to push them
again to file Original Application challenging the
obviously erroneous orders passed by the
respondent disposing of the representations of the
petitioners would be a travesty of justice."
6. In view of the above, it transpires that the opposite parties are
in contempt of this Court and in spite of providing several opportunities,
they are trying to justify their action.
7. By order dated 01.10.2021, passed in C.M.P. No. 199 of
2021, direction was issued upon the other departments to comply the order
passed by the writ court and the petitioners were directed to file their
representation within a week and the opposite parties were directed to take
a decision within three weeks thereafter.
8. The submissions of Mr. Shreenu Garapati, learned S.C.-III
has already been recorded in the earlier orders.
9. It also transpires that on 03.12.2021, 11.02.2022, 22.04.2022,
05.08.2022, the matter was adjourned and till date, the order of the writ
court has not been complied with.
10. Let notice be issued to the opposite parties under Rule 393 of
the Jharkhand High Court Rules.
11. Let this matter appear after four weeks on the assigned day.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
