Raghubar Tiwari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9810 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Raghubar Tiwari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 October, 2024

Author: S.N. Pathak

Bench: S.N. Pathak

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      W.P.(S). No. 5369 of 2024
                              -------

1. Raghubar Tiwari, son of late Sivnandan Tiwary, resident of Jharkhand Education Project, New DC Office, P.O. and P.S. Chaibasa & Dist. West Singhbhum.

2. Anup Kumar Jaiswal, son of late Satyanarayan Bhagat, , resident of Jharkhand Education Project, New DC Office, P.O. and P.S. Chaibasa & Dist. West Singhbhum.

3. Kranti Kumar Chand, son of Basudeo Prasad, resident of Vidyanagar, Road No. 3, Harmu, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, Dist. Ranchi.

4. Devesh Kumar Sinha, s/o. late R.N. Prasad, resident of village Bansjora Basti, P.O. Kharkharee, P.S. Madhuban, Dist. Dhanbad.

5. Amar Prakash Tuti, aged about years 52, S/o Late Kalyan Tuti Resident of Kusai, P.O. & P.S Doranda, District Ranchi.

6. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, aged about years 55, S/o Madan Mohan Tiwari, Resident of Canry Hill Colony. P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh & District- Hazaribagh

7. Prakash Kumar, aged about years 57, S/o Late PP Srivastva Resident ofAnand Nagar, Namda Basti P.O. & P.S Jamshedpur & District- East Singhbhum.

8. Manoj Kumar, aged about years 54, S/o Late Rangeela Prasad, Resident of Bakudih, Barharwa P.O. & P.S Sahebganj & District- Sahebganj.

9. Rajesh Kumar, aged about years 54, S/o Late Ram Prasad Singh, Resident of Bada Panohgarh, P.O. Sahebganj, P.S Jirawabadi & District- Sahebganj.

10. Raman Kumar Singh, aged about years 55, S/o Late Sita Ram Singh, Resident of MIG -A4, Housing Colony P.O. & P.S Dhanbad & District- Dhanbad.

11. Pradeep Kumar Rawani, aged about years 48, S/o Girdhari Rawani, Resident of Upper Deoghara P.O. Mahuda, P.S Madhuban & District- Dhanbad

12. Kuldipak Kumar Agarwal, aged about years 46, S/o Basudeo Prasad, Resident of Sunday Bazar, P.O. & P.S Bermo & District- Bokaro.

13. Rohit Kamal, aged about years 44, S/o Late Rameshwar Ram Ram, Resident of Naya Toli Chowk P.O. GPO, P.S Naya Toli & District- Ranchi.

14. Pramod Kumar Jaiswal, aged about years 50, S/o Late Man Prasad Jaiswal, Resident of Barka Gaon Road Ρ.Ο. Hazaribagh, P.S Sadar & District- Hazaribagh.

15. Sanjay Kumar Kapri, aged about years 58, S/o Late Jai Chandra Kapri, Resident of Gulzarbag P.O. & P.S. Godda & District- Godda.

16. Ujjawal Kumar Mishra, aged about years 54, S/o Late Bal Govind Mishra, Resident of Rajendra Nagar P.O. & P.S. Dumka & District- Dumka.

17. Anup Michael Kerketta, aged about years 51, S/o Late Abraham Kerketta, Resident of Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum & District- Ranchi.

18. Sumanta Kumar, aged about 48 years, S/o Haridas Chandra, Resident of Village Kurmaband, P.O. & P.S. Khurmabad & District Dumka.

19. Manoj Kumar Ambasth, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Lalit Kishor Ambastha, Resident of Anmol Tower, Near Sidho Kanho, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka & District Dumka.

                                         ...........         Petitioners.
                               Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District- Ranchi

3. The Chief Secretary cum Chairman, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education Project Council, having its office at JSCA Stadium Road Sector III P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.

4. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, having its office at JSC Stadium Road, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.

                                         .......        Respondents
                                With

1. Meetu Sinha, aged about 43 years, D/o Ajay Prakash Sinha, Resident of Triveni Enclave, JP Nagar, P.O. & P.S Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad.

2. Lalima Jyotsna Lakara, aged about 54 years, D/o-Late Samuel Lakara, Resident of Devengna Chowk, P.O. & P.S Korra, District- Hazaribagh

3. Bindu Jha, aged about 56 years, D/o Late B.D Jha, Resident of Kadma Ramnagar, P.O. & P.S Jamshedpur & District- East Singhbhum.

4. Monidipa Banerjee, aged about 51 years, D/o Late Sivnandan Tiwari, Resident of Shivpuri Colony, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S Doranda, District-Ranchi.

5. Rita Kumari, aged about 54 years, D/o Late RP Mandal, Resident of Near DC Office, P.O.& P.S Chaibasa & District- East Singhbhum ........... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District- Ranchi

3. The Chief Secretary cum Chairman, State Executive Committee, Jharkhand Education Project Council, having its office at JSCA Stadium Road Sector III P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.

4. The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, having its office at JSC Stadium Road, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.

........... Respondents

------

              CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK
                    For the Petitioners       : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
                                                Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate
                    For the State             : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC(L&C)
                                                Mr. Sushant Kumar, AC to SC-II
                    For the JEPC              : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
                                                Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate
                                                 ------
04/ 03.10.2024      Heard the parties.

2. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are same and identical, they have been tagged and heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. Petitioners in both the writ petitions are aggrieved by order of transfer dated 12.09.2024 issued under the pen and signature of State Project Director. Further prayer has been made for payment of salary equivalent to similarly situated employees working in the State Government as per the Rules.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioners finding themselves eligible and fulfilling the requisite criteria, applied for appointment to various posts of Assistant Program Officer, Additional District

Programme Officer, Assistant Resources Person on contractual basis. Upon being selected, they gave their joining in the different districts of the State of Jharkhand on different dates. After their joining they were discharging their duties sincerely and to the utmost satisfaction of the respondent-State. It is the case of petitioners that the Jharkhand Education Project Council vide order dated 12.09.2024 took a decision to transfer the employees in light of letter dated 31.07.2024 of the Election Commission of India and the decision taken in the 53rd State Executive Meeting dated 25.03.2019, in which it has been resolved that any officer/ employee can serve for a maximum period of six years at the block level and three years at the district level. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said action of the respondent-JEPC have preferred in the present writ petitions.

5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners vociferously argues that no order can be passed dehors the rules. Assailing the impugned order it has been argued that without consultation with the State Government or the Central Government, the Rules have been amended and the respondents, in view of the Amended Rules, have transferred the petitioners which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Further, it has been argued that as per Rule-44(3)(ka) of Jharkhand Education Project Council Rules, petitioners are entitled for salary equivalent to the State Employees which have neither been considered nor paid to the petitioners. Further, it has been argued that in view of guidelines of the Election Commission, the transfer order has been issued. However, from perusal of said guidelines nowhere it transpires that a direction has been given by the Election Commission to transfer the petitioners. Referring to several clause of the Rules namely, Rules-5, 5.1 and 5.2 it has been submitted that these clauses did not govern the petitioners and as such, they ought not to have been transferred to a different place. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court by learned

senior counsel for the petitioners that even no option has been invited from the petitioners before passing of the order of transfer and as such, it can comfortably be inferred that entire order is dehors the Rules. Further, it has been argued that since petitioners have already joined the transferred post though with protest, the respondents may be directed to take a decision on the representations of the petitioners in view of the rules and guidelines of the Election Commission.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the respondent-JEPC opposing the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioners justifies the impugned order and submits that everything has been done as per the Rules. To buttress his arguments learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court particularly in case of LPA No. 10 of 2021 and submits that Election Commission's guidelines are not to be interfered by the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel submits that if any guidelines have been framed, the same is in the interest of State Government as well as Central Government and the same has to be followed in toto. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioners have joined the transferred post, if they file fresh representation the same shall be considered in accordance with law, rules and guidelines and suitable order shall be passed within a stipulated period of time.

7. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that since transfer order has already been given effect to the same cannot be interfered with. Transfer is an incidence of service. Employee has no right to continue at a particular place for long years. However, the transfer order can be interfered with if it is without jurisdiction and against the statutory provisions or malafide and punitive in nature. Nowhere it is reflected that the order is against the spirit of the guidelines. However, since guidelines have

been framed and amended rules have been made it is expected from the respondents to consider the same before issuance of any order of transfer.

8. Accordingly, I hereby direct the petitioners to file fresh representations annexing all the relevant documents on which they are relying upon, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after receiving the same alongwith the copy of this order, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law and after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, pass a speaking and reasoned order taking into account the prevalent rules, guidelines and circulars, within a further period of three weeks, which shall also be communicated to the petitioners. Respondents shall also consider the salary for which the petitioners are entitled for as per their claim seeking parity with the State employees.

9. Needless to say that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioners, the benefits as prayed for in the instant writ petitions shall be extended to them within a further period of three weeks.

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions both the writ petitions stand disposed of.

11. Pending I.As. stand closed.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal