The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... vs Murari Bhagat
2024 Latest Caselaw 8668 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... vs Murari Bhagat on 30 September, 2024

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   L.P.A. No. 489 of 2024

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government
of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO & PS-Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO & PS-Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. The Principal Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance
Department (Vigilance), Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan,
PO & PS-Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO &
PS-Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
5. The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government
of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO & PS-Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand                           ...    Appellants
                         Versus
Murari Bhagat, aged about 60 years, son of Shri Chunyun Bhagat,
resident of Deen Dayal Nagar, PO-Ranchi University, PS-Lalpur,
Ranchi-834008, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand ...          ...  Respondent
                         ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Appellants : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III Ms. Rishi Bharati, AC to AAG-III Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate

---------

04/Dated: 30.09.2024

This application is filed to condone the delay of 3 days in filing this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

2. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent states that he has no objection for the condonation of said period of delay.

3. Therefore, this application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. Admit.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The issues raised by the appellants require serious examination.

7. However, having regard to the fact that the learned Single Judge in paragraph 32 of the impugned judgment has opined that the equivalence of the post of the Engineer-in-Chief in the Vigilance Department vis-a-vis the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary in the Road Construction Department need not be examined but, proceeded to examine the same; and also because the learned Single Judge in paragraph 39 made a factual error in stating that there was no affidavit filed by the appellants on the point of equivalence when such affidavit is Annexure-4, filed by the Chief Secretary there shall be interim stay of the judgment of the learned Single Judge until further orders.

8. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 15.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.6693 of 2023 is hereby stayed until further orders.

9. Consequently, I.A. No. 9910 of 2024 stands disposed of.

(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.) APK/RK