[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Somnath Ojha on 5 December, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                          2025:JHHC:36572-DB




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           L.P.A. No. 314 of 2024
                                     -----

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Minor Irrigation having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O & P.S: Doranda, Town and District: Ranchi.

2. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Ranchi Zone, having office at Engineer's Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S: Dhurwa, Town and District: Ranchi.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Hazaribagh having its office at P.O, P.S & District:Hazaribagh.

                               ...     ...      ...    Appellants

                              Versus

1. Somnath Ojha, aged about 71 years, son of: Late Shiv Nath Ojha, resident of Village-Rampur Atrauli, P.O & P.S: Ishuaur, District:

Saran (Bihar). ... ... ...Writ petitioner/Respondent

2. The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, having its office at Doranda, P.O & P.S: Doranda, Town and District: Ranchi.

                           ...    ...    ...     Respondents
                    -------

CORAM:HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

-------

For the Appellants : Mr.Ravi Prakash Mishra, A.C. to A.A.G.-II For the Resp. No.1 : Mr.Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate : Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate : Ms. Akanksha Priya, Advocate : Mr. Karamjit S. Chhabra, Advocate : Mr. Ritwik Raj, Advocate For the Resp. No. 2 : Ms. Suman Roy, Advocate

------

Order No.13/Dated 05th December, 2025

1. The instant Caveat Case being Caveat Case No. 199 of 2024 has

been filed to caveat in the proceeding since has served its

purpose, since, the appearance has been made by respondent -

writ petitioner on being noticed by this Court vide order dated

26.09.2024, where in appellant was directed to serve the papers

to the learned counsel for the caveator.

Page 1 2025:JHHC:36572-DB

2. Accordingly, the instant caveat is being discharged.

3. The instant appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters

Patent Appeal and is directed against the order/judgment dated

15.01.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in

W.P.(S) No. 5307 of 2022, by which the claim of the writ petitioner

for upgradation under the ACP/MACP was allowed by quashing

the order contained in Memo No. 386 dated 12.05.2022.

4. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ

petition as has been incorporated in the impugned judgment as

also inserted in the memo of appeal are being referred herein: -

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Typist on work

charge on 19.11.1979 and regularized on 04.04.1980. On 01.04.1981,

the posts of Typist and Correspondence Clerk were unified by the

Government of Bihar, and pursuant to Memo No. 2470 dated

10.12.1981 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Minor

Irrigation, Muzaffarpur Circle, he was ordered to work as a

Correspondence Clerk. He discharged duties in this post across

various Minor Irrigation circles in Bihar, and after the state

bifurcation, his services came under Jharkhand. He was transferred

to Minor Irrigation Circle, Hazaribagh vide Memo No. 3015 dated

12.12.2002, and joined on 03.02.2003 and serving until retirement

on 31.12.2011.

Page 2 2025:JHHC:36572-DB

The petitioner qualified the Hindi Noting and Drafting

Examination, confirmed by the Joint Secretary, Raj Bhasha

Department, on 21.09.1981. He received the 1st ACP after 12 years,

confirmed vide Memo No. 6(A)-2/2009 1772 dated 26.08.2009, and

subsequent 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP benefits after 24 and 30 years

of service, confirmed by Memo No. 80-49/2010 3175/ACP dated

12.07.2010 (effective 19.11.2003) and Memo No. 80-58/2010 IX

497/ACP dated 15.02.2011 (effective 29.11.2009).

Despite this, the petitioner's monetary benefits under the 6th

Pay Revision since 01.01.2006 were not paid, though his salary had

been fixed under the 6th Pay Commission as per Memo No. 660A

dated 28.02.2009. The petitioner represented to the Superintending

Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Hazaribagh, highlighting that he had

passed the departmental examination in 2008, which was required

for pay fixation post-5th Pay Revision. No departmental

proceedings were ever initiated against him during or after his

service, and he had not engaged in any misrepresentation or fraud.

When the post retiral benefit were not paid to the petitioner,

then the petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P.S No.

5082/2012, and the Hon'ble Court, in its order dated 21.09.2012,

directed the respondents to consider his case and release his

monetary benefits. His last pay was Rs. 23,000/- as on 01.07.2011,

duly recorded in Letter No. 1217 dated 26.07.2012. However, the

Page 3 2025:JHHC:36572-DB

respondents issued Orders Nos. 1650, 1651, 1652 and 1653 dated

10.11.2012 by which pay of petitioner was reduced to Rs. 20,510/-.

Then petitioner filed W.P.S No. 1332/2013challenging the order

dated 10.11.2012 and further an I.A No. 4195/2013, has also been

preferred wherein Letter No. 512 dated 01.06.2013 has also been

challenged by which recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,72,907/- from

service benefits of the petitioner has been ordered.

Vide order dated 06.01.2022, this Court set aside the orders of

10.11.2012 and 01.06.2013 and directed the Superintending

Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Hazaribagh, to pass an

appropriate order in accordance with law.

Thereafter on 09.02.2022 the petitioner informed the respondents

about the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2022.In compliance of order

passed in W.P.S No. 1332/2013the petitioner was given a personal

hearing on 04.03.2022, and the Superintending Engineer passed a

detailed order in Memo No. 386 dated 12.05.2022but claim of the

petitioner was rejected vide Memo No. 386 dated 12.05.2022 on the

ground that the writ -petitioner is not entitled to 2nd ACP as per

Gazette Notification No. 237 dated 23.05.2014, having retired on

31.12.2011.

The respondent/writ-petitioner, being aggrieved by the said

decision, has approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being

W.P.(S) No. 5307 of 2022 to quash and set aside the order contained

in letter no. 386 dated 12.05.2022 and for direction upon the

Page 4 2025:JHHC:36572-DB

respondents to fix and pay pension and other retiral benefit as per

last pay drawn by the petitioner i.e. Rs. 23000/- which is payable to

the writ petitioner from 01.07.2011.

The respondent appeared before the writ Court and had filed

the counter affidavit wherein the ground had been taken that

delays in pay fixation occurred due to the petitioner not placing

objections from the District Accounts Officer, Hazaribagh, who

raised queries in Memo No. 1238 dated 17.09.2009 and Memo No.

616 dated 25.08.2011 regarding clearance of departmental exams

before ACPs were granted. Consequently, the time-bound

promotion of 19.11.1989 was found inadmissible under Finance

Department Letter No. 493 dated 22.02.2007 and Circular No.

3/2000 dated 14.11.2000, leading to cancellation of earlier ACPs.

The petitioner was granted a revised 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs.

5,000-8,000/-w.e.f. 18.03.2008, and pay fixation was verified by the

District Accounts Officer in Letter No. 131 dated 12.05.2022.

5. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment while

placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar

& Ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 496, has set aside the

decision so taken by the respondent, with a direction to fix and pay

the pensionary benefits to the petitioner including difference of the

salary on the account of sixth PRC with effect from 01.01.2006 as

per the last pay drawn i.e., Rs. 23,000/-, and pay the consequential

Page 5 2025:JHHC:36572-DB

benefits, with a further direction to complete the entire exercise

within the stipulated period of eight weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of the order.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/state:

6. The State-appellant has taken the ground that passing the

departmental examination is mandatory as per the provisions

made under Rule 157 (3) (J) of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules

1958, and also in view of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of

the Patna High Court in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh v.

State of Bihar reported in 2000 SC online pat 840.

Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no.1/writ

petitioner:

7. Per contra, Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent-writ petitioner, has submitted that once the

judgment has been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, i.e., in the

case of Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

(supra), then placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the

Full Bench of the Patna High Court is not worth considering in

view of the binding effect of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

8. Mr. Tandon has also relied upon the reported judgment passed

by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna

Nandan Singh v. The State of Jharkhand passed in L.P.A. No. 473

of 2017 wherein, after taking into consideration the judgment

Page 6 2025:JHHC:36572-DB

passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amresh Kumar

Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra), the specific finding

has been recorded, holding therein that there is no requirement to

pass the departmental examination in view of the specific

proposition laid down in paragraph27 of the said judgment.

Analysis

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the

impugned judgment.

10. The writ-petitioner, the respondent herein, while working in

Class-III as a Correspondence Clerk, has been granted the benefit

of up-gradation under ACP/MACP on completion of the period as

per the provisions made in the respective schemes. However,

subsequent to the grant of up-gradation, the decision so taken up

of gradation has been recalled in the backdrop of the fact that the

writ-petitioner has not passed the departmental examination as

required to be passed.

11. The question which has been raised on behalf of the State-

appellant is that, in view of the provisions contained under Rule

157 (3) (J) of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules 1958, coupled

with the judgment passed by the Full Bench of the Patna High

Court in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar

(supra), the passing of the departmental examination is necessary

for the purpose of obtaining upgradation in the pay scale.

Page 7 2025:JHHC:36572-DB

12. There is no dispute that the provision has been made under

Rule 157 (3) (J) of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules 1958, as also

the judgment has been passed by the Full Bench of the Patna High

Court, but the question which requires consideration is that once

the law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, i.e., in the

case of Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

(supra), this Court is to go on the basis of the binding precedent as

per the mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution of India read

with Article 144 thereof.

13. Therefore, said view has been taken by this Court in the case of

Krishna Nandan Singh v. The State of Jharkhand (supra) wherein

in paragraph 27, it has been held that since the Hon'ble Apex Court

has laid down a law in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh and others

vs. State of Bihar and others (supra) as such in view of the

principle as laid down under Article 141 of the Constitution of

India read with Article 144 thereof, the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Apex Court is having binding precedent over the Full

Bench of Patna High Court even though it was binding since

rendered prior to 15.11.2000 i.e. the date of bifurcation of Bihar into

two States, carving out the State of Jharkhand and State of Bihar,

for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment

are being referred herein:-

27. This Court is conscious that a Full Bench of Patna High Court has passed an order in the case of "Maheshwar Prasad Singh vrs.

State of Bihar", reported in 2000 SCC OnLine pat 840 wherein

Page 8 2025:JHHC:36572-DB

passing of the departmental examination has been held to be mandatory but since the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down a law in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh and others vs. State of Bihar and others (supra) as such in view of the principle as laid down under Article 141 of the Constitution of India read with Article 144 thereof, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is having binding precedent over the Full Bench of Patna High Court even though it was binding since rendered prior to 15.11.2000 i.e. the date of bifurcation of Bihar into two States, carving out the State of Jharkhand and State of Bihar.

28. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussions, is of the view that all the issues have been answered in favour of the petitioner.

14. This Court, after having discussed the aforesaid facts and

adverting to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, has

found that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.(supra), as

would be evident from paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment,

which led the learned Single Judge to interfere with the impugned

order, which, according to our considered view, cannot be said to

suffer from any error.

15. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is dismissed.

16. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.