Jharkhand High Court
Gayatri Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (C) No. 84 of 2022
1. Gayatri Kumari
2. Rajesh Ranjan Verma
3. Rajiv Kumar
4. Ajitesh Kumar
5. Mritunjai Kumar Pandey ... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sri Sukhdeo Singh, Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Smt. Vandana Dadel, Principal Secretary, Department of
Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Ranchi
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
---------
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V
---------
Per Mr. S.K. Mishra, C.J.
09/Dated: 23.02.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court
made the following order, (per, S.K. Mishra, C.J.)
The petitioner in this case complains of violation of the
judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 06.09.2021
in L.P.A. No. 41 of 2019. The operative portion of the order is as
under:
"22. We have gone across the order passed by the learned Single
Judge and found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has only
considered the fact that merely because one section of the
employees are deprived from the benefit of promotion the same
cannot be said to be a cause of action to come forward to get a
declaration of policy decision of the State Government to be arbitrary
and irrational. But we are not in agreement with such finding for the
reason that it is not the question of only promotion rather it is the
question of principle of merger/integration of posts and its effect and
once the government takes a decision for integration/merger of the
posts/cadres all implication has to be given effect to but the learned
Single Judge has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter,
therefore, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the
learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Furthermore, since the issue of lis before the learned Single
Judge was the implication of the principle of merger not the
promotion as promotion will be consequence of merger/integration of
a cadre but that aspect of the matter has not been considered and
the learned Single Judge has also not considered that if policy
decision as contained in Clause 3 and 4 of the Resolution dated
12.09.2008 is allowed to be continued it will lead to class amongst
class, which is yet another example of unreasonableness as there
cannot be class amongst class, we are of the view that order passed
by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
23. In view thereof, the part of clause 3 and 4 of the Resolution
dated 12.09.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside."
In the meantime, a supplementary show cause has been filed
on behalf of Opposite Party nos. 2 and 3, wherefrom it is apparent
that the petitioners have been granted pay-scale equivalent to
administrative service and the post has been upgraded after merger.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner has still subsisting grievances, as indicated in the
rejoinder affidavit, we are of the opinion that it constituted a fresh
cause of action and the petitioners are at liberty to agitate the same
before the appropriate Forum.
With such observation, the contempt proceeding is dropped.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(S.K. Mishra, C.J.)
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
APK/VK
