Jharkhand High Court

Baibhaw Gahlaut vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others on 9 May, 2023

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
        W.P. (PIL) No. 2266 of 2021
Baibhaw Gahlaut ...          ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   Petitioner
                    Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ...            ...     ...   Respondents
                    WITH
             W.P. (S) No. 857 of 2010
1. Chandrashekhar Prasad Sinha
2. Pawan Kumar
3. Rambha Singh
4. Neelam devi
5. Pushpa Mandal             ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   Petitioners
                    Versus
Sahibganj Municipality and others        ...     ...     ...   Respondents
                    WITH
             W.P. (S) No. 7009 of 2013
Ashok Kumar Mishra           ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   Petitioner
                    Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ...            ...     ...   Respondents
                    WITH
             W.P. (S) No. 4269 of 2018
Hari Narayan Prasad                ...   ...   ...   ...   Petitioner
                    Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ...            ...     ...   Respondents
                    WITH
             W.P. (S) No. 7265 of 2019
Ram Naresh Sharma            ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   Petitioner
                    Versus
Jharkhand Mineral Area Development
Authority and others                     ...     ...     ...   Respondents
                    WITH
             W.P. (S) No. 712 of 2021
Radha Raman Singh            ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   Petitioner
                             Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ...            ...     ...   Respondents
                    ---------
CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
             SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
                    ---------
For the Petitioner(s): M/s. Sudhanshu Shekhar Choudhary, Kabisha
                          Goenka, Onkar Nath Tiwary, Ranjit Kumar
                          Tiwari, Naiyar Eqbal, Manoj Tandon, Neha
                          Bhardwaj, Adamya Kerketta, Advocates
For the Respondents: M/s. Sharad Kaushal, (A.C. to A.A.G.-III), Rahul
                          Saboo (G.P.-II), Gaurang Jajodia (A.C. to G.P.-
                          II), Harsh Preet Singh (A.C. to G.P.-V), Kishore
                          Kumar Singh (S.C.-V), Krishna Prajapati (A.C.
                          to S.C.-V), Manoj Kumar (G.A.-III), Krishna
                          Murari, Rajesh Kumar, Ranjit Kumar, Amit
                          Kumar Verma, Manoj Tandon, Rajesh Kumar,
                          Manindra Kumar Sinha, Advocates

                 ---------
05/Dated: 09.05.2023
       Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court

passed the following, (Per Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

                           ORDER

1) This bunch of the writ petitions and the Public Interest Litigation

being W.P. (PIL) No. 2266 of 2021 has mainly espoused one genre of

grievance i.e. the inability of the Sahibgnaj Municipality, Jharkhand

Minor and Mineral Area Development Authority (MADA), Palamau Zila

Parishad and the Urban Development Department and similarly

situated public utility services. The petitioners in all these cases except

W.P. (PIL) No. 2266 of 2021 are the retired employees of these

institutions, which are, in essence, instrumentalities of the State. These

institutions are at present not financially viable to pay the retiral dues

and family pensions of the petitioners and, therefore, the writ petitions

have been brought together along with W.P. (PIL) No. 2266 of 2021.

2) Admittedly, all these institutions were being funded by the State

Government or were established under the aegis of the State

Government. Now, the relevant question is whether in case of their

inability to meet the financial obligations towards their own employees,

can the State Government be directed to make provisions for the

same?

3) In this connection, we take note of the preamble of the

Constitution of India, wherein the Constitution Assembly has

incorporated,

"... ... ... and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring dignity of individual and the unity and

integrity of this nation; ... ... ..."

4) Thus, it is clear that the Indian State, the State of Jharkhand,

being one of its federal partners, is a welfare State wherein the dignity

of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation has been kept at the same pedestal. It is being time and again reiterated by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as many High Courts that the right to

life as enshrined in the Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not

mean mere animal existence but it encompasses within itself the right

to life with all human dignities.

5) A person who has rendered majority of his life in service of an

institution which is either funded by the State Government or is

established under the guidance and patronage of the State

Government cannot be denied of their retiral dues or family pensions

because of the commercial inviability of the institutions and in such

matters, the State should make endeavour to see that the grievances

of such individuals are redressed.

6) In the State of Uttarakhand, similar matters came before the

Division Bench of the Court headed by the then Chief Justice K.M.

Josepsh (as His Lordship was then) in the case of Lalita Prasad

Tewari Vs. Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman

Nigam [Writ Petition (S/B) No.494 of 2015], wherein appropriate

directions were given for payment of the retiral dues and family

pensions of the retired employees of the Payjal Sansadhan of

Uttarakhand State.

7) Retiral benefit is not largesse, actually it is a right.

....................................................................................

.............................................................................................

..............................

8) Keeping in view the aforesaid considerations, we hereby dispose

of this bunch of the writ petitions including W.P. (PIL) No.2266 of 2021

directing the State of Jharkhand to bring out a scheme within a period

of six months hence to redress the grievances of these petitioners and similarly situated persons in the State, so that their retiral dues and

family pensions can be paid to them in time.

9) All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.

10) Urgent Certified copies as per Rules.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

(Ananda Sen, J.) Manoj/MM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1479 of 2019 Ramjan Mian and another ... ... ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... ... Respondents With W.P.(S) No. 1621 of 2020 Narsingh Prasad Singh and others ... ... ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... ... Respondents

---------

CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

---------

For the Petitioners: Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Nidhi Rani, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.

---------

09/Dated: 09.05.2023

As prayed by the petitioners, let these cases be listed on

11.07.2023.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

(Ananda Sen, J.) Manoj/MM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (PIL) No. 4742 of 2021 Rinku Rai, Aged about 36 Years, Wife of Sri Umesh Rai, At present Councilor Ward No.31, Adityapur Municipal Area, Adityapur, resident of Block No.222/2/3, Adityapur Housing Colony, Road No. 14, Adityapur-2, P.O.- Adityapur, P.S.- R.I.T., District - Seraikella- Kharsawan, Jharkhand.

----------Petitioner VERSUS

1. The Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi

2. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi

3. The Manager Estate, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi

4. The Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur

5. The State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary

6. The Principal secretary, City/Town Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

7. The Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan

8. The Superintendent of Police, Seraikella-Kharsawan

9. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan

10. The Circle Officer, Gamhariya, Seraikella-Kharsawan

11. The Officer in Charge, R.I.T. Police Station, Adityapur

-----------Respondents

---------

CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

---------

For the Petitioner: Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the JSHB: Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Raj, Advocate For the State: Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C.-III

---------

05/Dated: 09.05.2023

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court

passed the following, (Per Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

ORDER

1) By filing this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed for

the following reliefs:-

"For issuance of an appropriate Writ/Writs, rule/rules, Order/Orders, Direction/Directions especially a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 to 4 not to make any allotment of the plot measuring area 400 x 120 Sq. ft. on Western side of the vacant plot between the Road No.13-14 situated at Adityapur Housing Colony, Adityapur-2, P.O. Adityapur, P.S.- R.I.T., District - Seraikella-Kharsawan, is being used as a Play Ground / Park by the children/persons of the locality general in mass and also use on occasion of Marriage/Shradh/other general functions and the same

has been shown as Play Ground/Park in the Master Plana and the Respondents Authorities have no authority to settle the said piece of land in favour of any person and the Petitioner further prays for a direction to the Respondents/Authorities restraining them from making any construction/transfer/allotment by Housing Board in favour of any persons ......."

2) On the last date i.e. on 25.04.2023 the petitioner was directed to file

supplementary affidavit in compliance of Rule 5 Jharkhand High

Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 and directed to furnish

the details of criminal cases pending against her. Though it is

brought to our notice that no criminal case is earlier initiated against

the petitioner, from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents-

Jharkhand State Housing Board it is borne out that the petitioner

herself has encroached certain Government land and when her

action was sought to be remedied by the State Government

Housing Board, she has filed this Public Interest Litigation.

3) We are not all satisfied with the credentials of the of the petitioner

in terms of Rule 5 of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest

Litigation) Rules, 2010 and also in the light of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs.

Shiv Shankar Sharma and others (2022 SCC Online SC 1541).

4) Hence, this Public Interest Litigation is dismissed being devoid of

any merit.

5) All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.

6) No orders as to costs.

7) Urgent Certified copies as per Rules.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

Manoj/MM (Ananda Sen, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 352 of 2022 The Union of India and others ... ... ... ... Appellants Versus Nazir Ahmad Malik and another ... ... ... Respondents

---------

CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

---------

For the Appellants: Mr. Pratyush Kumar, C.G.C. For Resp. No.1: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Mr. Prabhash Chandra Sinha,

---------

05/Dated: 09.05.2023

I.A. No. 7572 of 2022

Having heard the parties and being satisfied with the grounds

shown, I.A. No. 7572 of 2022 is allowed and the delay of 31 days in

filing the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No. 352 of 2022

Let this matter be listed on 11.07.2023 as fresh filing.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

(Ananda Sen, J.) Manoj/MM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 416 of 2022 Shakuntala Agrawal and others ... ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... ... Respondents

---------

CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

---------

For the Appellants: Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I

---------

08/Dated: 09.05.2023

I.A. No. 11884 of 2022

Having heard the parties and being satisfied with the grounds

shown, I.A. No. 11884 of 2022 is allowed and the delay of 34 days in

filing the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No. 416 of 2022

Let this matter be listed on 11.07.2023 as fresh filing.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

(Ananda Sen, J.) Manoj/MM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 465 of 2022 Employers in Relation to the Management of Central Bank of India, Ranchi ... ... ... ... Appellant Versus Workmen Represented through the Deputy General Manager, Bihar Provincial Central Bank of India Employees Association ... Respondent

---------

CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

---------

For the Appellant: Mr. Rohan Kashyap, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Advocate

---------

06/Dated: 09.05.2023

As prayed for, put up this case on 13.06.2023.

As prayed, let the name of learned counsel appearing for the

respondent (Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Advocate) be reflected in the

cause-list of this case henceforth.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

(Ananda Sen, J.) Manoj/MM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 211 of 2021 Narendra Kumar Azad ... ... ... ... ... Appellant Versus Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others... ... Respondents

---------

CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

---------

For the Appellant: Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, Advocate

---------

06/Dated: 09.05.2023

I.A. No. 5658 of 2021

I.A. No. 5658 of 2021 filed for acceptance of documents on

record is allowed in view of the fact that all these documents were

annexed to the writ petition and as per the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the appellant, no additional or fresh document has