Satyendra Kumar Son Of Sri ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 339 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            W.P.(S) No. 1687 of 2021
                                      ----

Satyendra Kumar son of Sri Chandeshwar Yadav, resident of D.G.M.S. Colony, PO PS Sadar, District Dhanbad.

                                                            ...     Petitioner
                                       -versus-
           1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Office at Police Headquarter, H.E.C. Township, PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kilhan Range, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Saraikela Kharsawan.

5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Saraikela Kharsawan.

                                                            ...     Respondents
                                          ----

                CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
                                            ----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC IV

----

7/ 19.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the Memo No.1848 dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure 6) whereby the respondent authorities have denied the benefits of seniority/duration of pension/ MACP benefits to the petitioner irrespective of the fact that the petitioner were appointed by the order dated 09.02.2018 of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1809/2018 SLP(C) No.25738/2016. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to give notional seniority/duration of pension/MACP to the petitioner for the period he has served, moreover, treat that period for calculating seniority/duration of pension/MACP in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1809/2018 SLP (C) No.25738/2016.

3. During course of argument, it has been submitted by both the parties that this case is squarely covered by the order passed in W.P.(S) No.1672 of 2021, as there is similar issue involved in this case also.

4. Petitioner has prayed for grant of MACP from the date of initial appointment. State-respondents are denying the same on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the petitioner and other similarly situated

persons are not entitled to any back wages for the period during which they have not served.

5. Similar issue fell for consideration in W.P.(S) No.1672 of 2021, wherein, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4239 of 2018, this Court has held that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit for the period he has not served as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1809 of 2018 has held that the appellant is not entitled to any back wages or benefit for the period he has not served. The word "no benefit" will include the benefit of MACP also. Thus, there is an embargo put by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for granting any benefit for the period which the petitioner has not served. Admittedly, the petitioner has not served from 14.10.2012 to 07.04.2018. Thus, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit as claimed by the petitioner.

6. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/S.K/Cp-02