Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Lakahan Prasad Yadav on 21 February, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.287 of 2021
--------
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, P.O & P.S.-
Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department,
Hazaribagh, P.O, P.S. & Dist-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
4. The Superintendent Engineer, Tenughat Dam Division, Water
Resources Department, P.O & P.S-Tenughat, Dist-Bokaro,
Jharkhand.
5. The Executive Engineer, Tenughat Dam Division, Water
Resources Department, P.O & P.S-Tenughat, Dist-Bokaro,
Jharkhand. ... Appellants
Versus
Lakahan Prasad Yadav, aged about 49 years, S/o Late
Geewan Gope, R/o-Village Birsa, P.O.-Hardiyamee, P.S.-
Gomiya, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, S.C. II
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, Advocate
------
Per Mr. S.K. Mishra, C.J.
Order No.09/Dated 21st February, 2023
1. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the State of
Jharkhand has assailed the order passed by the learned
Single Judge on 01.12.2020 in W.P.(S) No.6207 of 2018
whereby the direction was given to the State considering
the reported case of State of Punjab v. B.K. Dhir [(2017) 9
SCC 337] and State of Punjab and Another v. Dharam
Pal [(2017) 9 SCC 395] to pay the salary for the period the
petitioner had worked on officiating capacity in pursuance
of the order of the competent authority (Annexure-9 to the
writ application).
2. The fact of the case is not disputed at this stage
that the petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee on
01.01.1993 on compassionate ground. He was posted at
different places and discharged duty and office order dated
05.12.2001 was issued regarding deputation of his service.
It is also not disputed that the petitioner discharged
duty of Typist and Office Assistant for some period but he
was not given pay for the same.
3. Learned Single Judge relying upon the aforesaid two
judgments allowed the application in part, though the
learned Single Judge did not allow the prayer for promotion
of the respondent-petitioner. However, learned Single Judge
directed that the higher pay scale should be awarded to the
petitioner and the differential amount should be paid. Such
order has been challenged in this case.
4. It has brought to the notice of the Court that similar
matter came before the coordinate Bench of this Court in
L.P.A. No.735 of 2019 wherein one of us, namely, Shri Sujit
Narayan Prasad, J., is a member.
5. After considering the various judgments including
the case of State of Punjab v. B.K. Dhir (Supra) and
State of Punjab and Another v. Dharam Pal (Supra),
this Court came to the conclusion that since the matter is
already covered, we do not consider it appropriate to
entertain this Letters Patent Appeal.
6. Moreover, Annexure-9 of the writ application reveals
that respondent herein, the petitioner before the learned
Single Judge, has been directed vide letter dated
04.03.2009 to the effect that - "iwoZ ds vkns'k dks la'kksf/kr djrs gq, Jh
/kus'oj jke] i=kpkj fyfid] rsuq?kkV ck¡/k vapy] rsuq?kkV dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os
viuk lEiw.kZ izHkkj Jh y[ku izlkn ;kno] izfrfu;qDr] vuqlsod rsuq?kkV ck¡/k vapy]
rsuq?kkV dks vxys vkns'k rd ds fy, lkSai nsa rFkk Jh ;kno] }kjk lafpdkvksa ds miLFkkiu
esa iw.kZ :i ls lg;ksx djsaxsA ;g vkns'k rqjar izHkkoh gksxkA"
7. It is clear that he was directed to take over the
charges of the higher post and in pursuance thereto he
discharged duties.
8. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this
Letters Patent Appeal.
9. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal stands
dismissed.
(S.K. Mishra, C.J.)
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Alankar/Rohit-
