Jharkhand High Court
Arun Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)
Contempt Case (Civil) No. 682 of 2022
Arun Kumar, Aged about 64 Years, S/o- Late Bhagwan Ram, R/o- Flat No.
F/TF, Swagatam Apartment, Shukla Colony, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District
Ranchi .... . Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sri Prashant Kumar, Fathers' name not known to the Petitioner, presently
posted as Secretary, Water resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Officiating at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, AC to Sr. SC-I
-------
th
Order No. 05 /Dated: 11 April 2023
This contempt case has been filed alleging willful and
intentional violation of the order dated 13th June 2018 passed in WP(S)
No.5426 of 2016.
2. In the order dated 13th June 2018, the writ Court has made the
following observations:
"10. Chequered history of litigation of this case would indicate
that the initial grievance of the petitioner was towards non-
payment of salary for the period of the alleged unauthorised
absence from duty. The petitioner has taken a stand that after the
order of transfer was issued on 14.10.2004 he tendered his
joining on 19.10.2004, however, in view of the forthcoming
Assembly Elections, 2004 he was not given posting, but he was
again sent back to the Water Resources Department. It is a matter
of record that objecting to this order of repatriation dated
17.12.2004 the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(S)
No. 328 of 2005. The matter was taken upto the Supreme Court in
Special Leave Petitions and thereafter the petitioner has again
approached this Court on as many as three occasions. May be the
petitioner has remained absent from duty, but the fact remains
that he has been pursuing legal remedy available to him. In the
above facts, while no exception can be taken to denial of salary to
the petitioner for the period during which he remained absent
from duty, no inference can be drawn that absence of the
petitioner from duty was willful and intentional and while so, the
punishment of Nindan must be held unjustified and accordingly it
is quashed.
11. Break in service for the period of unauthorised absence,
which in my opinion is not willful and intentional, and the order
holding the aforesaid period being non-pensionable have visited
the petitioner with civil consequences. This punishment
admittedly does not find place under Rule 49 of the Civil Services
2 Contempt Case (Civil) No. 682 of 2022
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930. This penalty thus
must be held without jurisdiction. This aspect of the matter has
not been considered by the appellate authority.
12. Under the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 a government
servant can be granted leave under Chapter-VI of the Code which
includes medical leave, half pay-leave, maternity leave,
extraordinary leave etc. Rule 236 of the Code provides that
extraordinary leave may be granted to the government servant
when no other leave is admissible under these Rules and when
other leave being admissible, the government servant concerned
applies in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave. The
punishment by which the period of absence has been treated as
break in service and non-pensionable, would deprive the
petitioner of the benefits to which he is entitled to under the
Code, and for this reason also this part of the penalty must go.
13. Consequently, the appellate order dated 10.08.2016 stands
modified to the above extent."
3. Mr. D.K. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
drawn our attention to the order dated 18 th December 2019 by which LPA
No.583 of 2018 filed by the State of Jharkhand was allowed.
4. However the aforesaid order of the Letters Patent Court has
been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 24 th August 2022 passed in
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12614 of 2020, in the following terms:
"Leave granted.
On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
view that the learned Single Judge while passing order on
13.6.2018 worked out the equities and the petitioner has been
deprived of his salary for a period of absence of six years. The
only modification made is that it would not be treated as a break
in service.
The Division Bench has interfered with it by remitting the
matter back vide the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2019 when
the appellant has already retired on 31.12.2018.
On hearing learned counsel for parties, we are of the view
that another round of litigation spread over years would be
unnecessary and the Single Judge was right in limiting the
benefits to the appellant of continuity of service without pay. We
are of the view that for this break period when the appellant is
stated not to have joined, he will not be entitled to any monetary
benefits but the continuity of service would not be broken.
With the aforesaid clarification of the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 13.6.2018, we affirm the same while setting
aside the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2019 of the Division
Bench.
Civil appeal is accordingly allowed, leaving parties to
bear their own costs."
5. Mr. D.K. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that in absence of an order by the competent authority the office
of the Accountant General may not process the claim of the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the show-cause reply filed by the contemnors,
3 Contempt Case (Civil) No. 682 of 2022
this Court finds no reason to proceed further with this contempt case and
accordingly, Contempt Case (Civil) No. 682 of 2022 is closed and disposed
of.
7. It is however indicated that in case any deficiency is found and
a communication is made from the office of the Accountant General, the
Departmental Secretary shall provide necessary order for processing the
claim of the petitioner.
8. I.A No.77 of 2023 stands disposed of.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
R.K.
