Jharkhand High Court
Pradeep Kumar Singh Aged About 58 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand Through D.C. ... on 28 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:20647 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 230 of 2024
----
Pradeep Kumar Singh aged about 58 years, S/o Sri
Ambika Prasad Singh, R/O Village- Majhiawan, P.O and
P.S-Majhiawan, District-Garhwa .... Petitioner
--Versus--
1. The State of Jharkhand through D.C. Garhwa R/O D.C
Quarter, P.O, H.P.O Garhwa, P.S. Garhwa(T), District-Garhwa
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Medninagar, R/O D.C
Quarter, P.O-H.P.O-Medninagar, P.S.-Medninagar (T), District-
Palamau.
3. Rajnath Mistri S/o Mundrika Mistri, R/o Village-Mayapur,
P.O+P.S Rehla, District Palamau
4. Surendra Kumar Vishwakarma, S/o Sri Srikant Vishwakarma,
R/o Village-Khoridih, P.O+P.S.-Meral, District-Garhwa
.... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
----
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
For the OP/State :- Mrs. Nirupama, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II
For the OP No.3 :- Mr. Shashank Shekhar Prasad, Advocate
----
06/28.07.2025 Heard Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.
Nirupama, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Shashank Shekhar
Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting-aside the order dated 27.01.2017,
passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division-I, Garhwa in Execution
Case No. 07 of 2008, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to
dismiss the execution case filed by the petitioner for executing the
judgment and order passed in Title Suit No. 28 of 1993, which was
decreed in favour of the petitioner.
3. Mr. Arwind Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that vide judgment dated 11.03.2008 passed in Title Suit No.
28 of 1993, which was decreed with cost and it was held that the
( 2025:JHHC:20647 )
petitioner is entitled for the appointment on the post of Rajaswa
Karamchari. He submits that the said execution case was pending
before the learned Executing Court and the learned Court vide order
dated 27.01.2017 has been pleased to dismiss the same. He further
submits that the learned Court has wrongly dismissed the execution
case in spite of the fact that the said suit was decreed in favour of the
petitioner and in view of that, the prayer made in the present petition
may kindly be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the State and opposite party no.3 jointly
opposed the prayer and submit that the suit was only declaratory in
nature and further consequential benefits, directions and decree are not
there and in view of that, the learned Court has rightly passed the
impugned order.
5. From the record, it transpires that the petitioner herein has
earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4405 of 2017, wherein
the prayer was made for directions upon respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for
considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of
Rajaswa Karamchari and the further prayer was made for direction
upon the said respondents to implement the judgement dated
21st March, 1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Garhwa in Title Suit
No. 28 of 1993 and the prayer was also made for direction upon the
respondents to pay the consequential benefits to the petitioner
taking into consideration the initial date of appointment of the
respondent nos. 4 and 5 on the post of Rajaswa Karamchari, in view
of the fact that the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioner was decreed in
his favour.
( 2025:JHHC:20647 )
6. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2023 and the learned
Coordinate Bench has taken into account that so far as consequential
relief is concerned, the learned suit Court merely declared the
appointment to the post of Rajaswa Karamchari and there is no
direction of consequential benefits and the decree is also not there and
consequently, the said writ petition was dismissed.
7. In the present civil miscellaneous petition, the decree is not
annexed and only the judgment is annexed and from the judgment of
the learned trial Court, it transpires that only the declaration was made
that the petitioner was entitled for appointment to the post of Rajaswa
Karamchari, however, there was no further direction of consequential
benefits and the decree is also not there. The execution case was
dismissed on 27.01.2017 and the present civil miscellaneous petition
has been filed on 19.03.2024 and the learned Executing Court held that
from the decree it transpired that nowhere it was ordered that decree
be executed through the process of the Court rather the legal and
perfect title of the plaintiff has been declared as he is entitled for the
appointment on the post of Rajaswa Karamchari and in that view of the
matter, the learned Court relying on the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1998 S.C. 743, has been
pleased to reject the said execution case.
8. In view of the above facts, approaching the High Court by way
of praying for consequential benefits and implementation of the Trial
Court judgment, which has been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court clearly suggests that the petitioner herein was knowing that
( 2025:JHHC:20647 )
the decree with regard to consequential benefits was not there and in
view of that, he has filed the said writ petition, which has been
dismissed and the execution case was further dismissed on 27.01.2017
and the present civil miscellaneous petition was filed on 19.03.2024,
however, the decree is not annexed with the present petition.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, the Court
finds that the learned Court has given a cogent reason for dismissing
the said execution case. There is no illegality in the impugned order.
10. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
11. Pending petition, if any, is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ Abha
