Jharkhand High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Pandey And Others vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 1 May, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 7016 of 2023
Sanjeev Kumar Pandey and others ... ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Ors.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate
: Mr. Ashutosh Anand No.2, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Abhinay Kumar, AC to GA I
---
04/01.05.2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. On 18.04.2024, it was specifically stated by the learned counsel
for the petitioners that the surviving grievance was only in connection
with paragraph 1(ii) of the writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners had participated in the selection process arising out of
Advertisement No.1 of 2010 for appointment of 4th grade employees
within the district of Palamau and the petitioners were successful but
the name of the petitioners did not figure in the final appointment list
dated 08.03.2018 which was in violation of the terms and conditions
of Advertisement No.1 of 2010. Under such circumstances, the
petitioners had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being
W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases and vide order
dated 12.09.2018 the respondents were directed to prepare merit list as
per the marks obtained in the written examination conducted by them
on 05.11.2017. The learned counsel submits that the order dated
12.09.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 was challenged by the
respondents in LPA No.26 of 2019 which was dismissed on
07.11.2019 and when the order of the writ court was not complied, a
contempt case was filed bearing Contempt Case (Civil) No. 22 of
2019 and other analogous cases. During the pendency of the contempt
case, the respondents issued Memo No.605, dated 08.10.2020,
whereby the petitioners and other candidates were directed to join .
4. A specific averment has been made in paragraph no.20 of the
writ petition that pursuant to the said memo dated 08.10.2020, the
petitioners had given their joining but no posting was given to them on
account of pendency of the criminal case lodged by the respondents in
connection with the selection process being Daltonganj Town PS Case
No.382 of 2017. Ultimately, the said criminal case was quashed by
this Court in Cr.M.P No. 1893 of 2020, dated 13.12.2021, and against
the same, the respondents had moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 2659 of 2023, and the order of this Court, dated
13.12.2021, was set aside vide judgment dated 01.09.2023 and the
matter was remanded back for fresh decision. On remand, a fresh
order was passed, and again the criminal case was quashed.
5. The learned counsel submits that there are two materials
available on record to show that the petitioners had given their joining
pursuant to the Memo No. 605 dated 08.10.2020. One is the paragraph
No. 14 of the show cause quoted in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 22 of
2019 and other analogous cases and another in the order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court which has also taken into consideration that
the petitioners were in employment and following directions were
issued :
"Taking into consideration of the fact that the respondents are
in employment as of now, the status quo as on today shall be
maintained."
6. The learned counsel submits that criminal case having been
quashed, the petitioners are discharging their duties after getting
posting from the respondents.
7. So far as the intervening period is concerned that is, from the
date of joining till they were given posting, the petitioners are entitled
for wages. The petitioners cannot be deprived of wages for the period,
they have been kept waiting for the posting, which is for the period
from November 2020 till they have been posted.
8. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by
this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7531 of 2012 dated 16.01.2013 (Yamuna
Giri Vs. State of Jharkhand), and also in W.P.(S) No.6424 of 2017,
dated 20.11.2017 (Renu Kumari Vs. The State of Jharkhand and
others). The learned counsel submits that since there was no fault on
the part of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the
wages for the intervening period. The learned counsel also submits
that all the petitioners were party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No.2659 of 2023 and other analogous cases.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the
prayer of the petitioners, has submitted that no appointment letter was
issued to the petitioners and there is nothing on record that the joining
was accepted. The learned counsel has submitted that merely because
the petitioners filed a letter of joining that by itself cannot be said that
the joining was accepted. He submits that acceptance of joining is a
procedure and calls for an order from the competent authority. The
learned counsel submits that after the completion of all the formalities,
fresh order dated 04.01.2024 has been issued with regard to issuance
of appointment letter to the petitioners and other similarly situated
persons and the appointment letter is to be issued subject to the
conditions and submitting of documents as mentioned in the letter
dated 04.01.2024. The learned counsel has submitted that although
certain observations have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
with regard to the fact that the petitioners are already working but the
same would require verification of the records.
10. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that a specific averment has been made in paragraph no. 19 of the writ
petition that the petitioners have given their joining in the office of
Deputy Collector, Medininagar Palamu and the same has not been
denied in the counter affidavit, rather it has been simply stated that it
is a matter of record and the same has been stated to be formal in
nature which required no comments.
11. Post this case for further dictation tomorrow at 2.15 P.M.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
