Jharkhand High Court
(Chambra Bhengra & Ors. vs . The State Of Jharkhand & Ors.) on 30 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 4599 of 2023
(Chambra Bhengra & Ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate
For the Resp. : Ms. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG
-------
I.A. No. 7807 of 2023
03/ 30.08.2023 Heard the parties.
Instant Interlocutory application has been filed for staying
the operation, implementation and execution of order contained in
memo No. 801 dated 27.08.2023 (Annexure-IA-1 to the interlocutory
application) by which the services of the petitioners shall be put to an
end w.e.f. 31.08.2023.
Admittedly, the petitioners, who are ex-service men, were
appointed on contract basis.
As argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, it is
the specific case of the petitioners that although the petitioners have not
reached the age of superannuation, they are being made to retire which
is against the legal propositions as set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Anr. Vs. Director General
of Police, Assam & Ors., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611 and the same
view has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Alok Burman &
Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported (2018) 2 JBCJ 383 (HC).
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State
by vehemently opposing the contention of learned senior counsel for the
petitioners submits that in a similar case, a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in case of Surendra Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand
& Ors. [W.P.(S). No. 6207 of 2019] vide its order dated 10.07.2020 has
rejected the plea of the petitioners of that case without granting any
relief to them. Learned counsel for the respondents also places reliance
on the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of District &
Sessions & Judge, Baghpat Vs. Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava & Anr.,
reported in 2006 All. LJ 1206.
From the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the documents brought on record, it appears that
admittedly the petitioners have not reached the age of superannuation.
The same has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the
respondent-State.
The judgments on which the learned counsel for the
respondents is placing reliance are distinguishable on the ground that in
that case order of termination/ superannuation was under challenge,
However, in the instant case the petitioners are still in service and have
not been superannuated/ terminated.
Under such circumstances, it appears that prima facie case is
made out and balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioners.
As such, respondents are directed to file counter-affidavit.
Till then, the operation, implementation and execution of
order contained in memo No. 801 dated 27.08.2023 (Annexure-IA-1 to
the interlocutory application), so far it relates to the present petitioners,
is hereby stayed till filing of the counter-affidavit.
With the aforesaid observation, I.A. No. 7807 of 2023
stands disposed of.
W.P.(S). No. 4599 of 2023
List this case on 05.10.2023
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
kunal
