Jharkhand High Court
Shiva Ramjee Mishra Alias Shivramjee ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.707 of 2023
Shiva Ramjee Mishra alias Shivramjee Mishra, aged about 81 years,
son of Late Jaldhar Mishra, resident of Shanti Sadan, Argora Road
(Dangal Para), P.O- Dumka, P.S- Dumka (T), District- Dumka
(Jharkhand).
........ Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Science and Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand,
through its Secretary, P.O & P.S- Ranchi, District - Ranchi
(Jharkhand)
3. The Director, Science and Technology Department, Government of
Jharkhand, P.O & PS- Ranchi, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand)
4. The Director, Department of Higher, Technical Education and Skill
Development, Government of Jharkhand, P.O & PS- Ranchi,
District - Ranchi (Jharkhand)
5. The Principal, Government Polytechnic, Dumka, P.O & PS- Dumka,
District - Dumka (Jharkhand)
..... Respondents/Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant: Ms. Khushboo Kataruka, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Kataruka, Advocate
Ms. Ushma Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V
Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, A.C. to G.P.-V
---------
Dated: 27.01.2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)
1. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for respondents.
2. The appellant had retired as a Demonstrator from the
Department of Technical Education, State of Jharkhand, on
31.01.2001.
3. Admittedly, the appellant had made a representation to the then
Government of Bihar on 22.04.1998 opposing the proposal of retiring
him at the age of 58 years and also for grant of Time Bound Promotion
-1 of 5-
as per UGC pay scales in view of a letter dt. 11.01.1991 and
contending that he ought to be retired only on attaining the age of 60
years, because the then Government of Bihar subsequently extended
the retirement age of Demonstrators working in Government
Engineering Colleges to 60 years.
4. Just prior to his retirement on 31.01.2001 appellant had again
given a representation on 09.01.2001 to the Government of Jharkhand
specifically complaining that he is sought to be retired at the age of 58
years, though he is entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years
(Annexure-3).
5. Without deciding the same during his lifetime, the respondents
retired him on 31.01.2001 at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years
and a pay scale of Rs.5500 - 9000/-.
6. The appellant then filed W.P.(S) No.933 of 2002 before this
Court which was disposed of on 05.03.2002 (Annexure-1) directing
the respondents to dispose of the representation made by him both
with regard to his age of superannuation and also with regard to
revised pay within 45 days.
7. When the said writ was issued in W.P.(S) No.933 of 2002, and it
was not obeyed, appellant had again filed W.P.(S) No.519 of 2003
complaining of inaction by the respondents and the appellant was
directed by this Court to file a Contempt case.
8. The appellant then filed a Contempt Case (Civil) No.401 of 2003
and the said Contempt Case was dismissed for non-prosecution.
9. Thereafter, he filed another representation on 22.08.2006 and
followed it up by another W.P. (S) No. 4721 of 2009, which was
disposed of 28.09.2018 to consider the case of appellant for grant of
-2 of 5-
revised pay scale and Time Bound Promotion, but the respondents
had not considered that.
10. Thereafter, on 01.02.2019, another order was passed by the
respondents rejecting both the plea of the appellant regarding his age
of superannuation and also with regard to his pay scale.
11. Challenging the same, the appellant had filed W.P. (S) No.3378
of 2019.
12. The learned Single Judge disposed of the same on 03.10.2023
rejecting the prayer as regarding the age of superannuation on the
ground that the appellant had approached the Court after 18 years
and, that the same cannot be extended at this stage. He also directed
the respondents to take effective steps for extending benefits of
revised pay scale along with arrears of salary within six weeks, since
the appellant was a senior citizen having age of about 81 years.
13. To the extent the learned Single Judge had denied the prayer
regarding the age of superannuation, the appeal has been preferred.
14. The fact remains that the appellant, even prior to his retirement
had given representation on 22.04.1998 stating that he should not be
retired at the age of 58 years and had also placed reliance on an order
issued by the then Government of Bihar on 06.07.1998 extending
retirement age of Demonstrators working in Government Engineering
Colleges to 60 years. He even gave a representation on 09.01.2001
just prior to his retirement on 31.01.2001 complaining about the
attempts of the respondents to retire him at the age of 58 years.
15. Notwithstanding the same, he was made to retire on 31.01.2001
and when he filed W.P. (S) No.933 of 2002 and the respondents were
asked to dispose of the claim of the appellant within 45 days through
-3 of 5-
an order of 05.03.2002, admittedly, nothing was done by the
respondents to decide about his age of superannuation.
16. The learned Single Judge, having noted in para-1 of his order
that earlier also on many occasions the appellant had knocked the
door of this Court, erroneously held in para-9 that since the appellant
had approached the Court after 18 years, relief cannot be granted,
ignoring the fact that there was writ of mandamus in favour of the
appellant way back on 05.03.2002 which the respondents deliberately
ignored and failed to decide the representations regarding age of
superannuation of the appellant.
17. In our opinion, the inaction of the respondents in disposing of the
representations of the appellant regarding his age of superannuation
within the time fixed in the order dt. 05.03.2002 in W.P.(S) No.933 of
2002 is a contempt of the Court and the respondents without offering
any explanation for their total inaction till 01.02.2019, cannot now
complain of the appellant filing the writ petition in 2019 on the aspect of
his age of superannuation. The respondents cannot take advantage of
their own wrong.
18. Therefore, to the extent, the learned Single Judge has rejected
the claim of the appellant with regard to extending the age of
superannuation, this appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the
learned Single Judge for fresh consideration.
19. The judgment of the learned Single Judge, insofar as extension
of benefits of revised pay scale along with arrear of salary are
concerned, is affirmed.
20. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide this matter
within four weeks in view of the advanced stage of the appellant. The
-4 of 5-
respondents shall also pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to
the appellant within four weeks for their inaction till 2019 in complying
with the order dt. 05.03.2002 in W.P. (S) No. 933 of 2002.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Manoj/Pramanik/Cp.2
-5 of 5-
