Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Mahendra Narayan Singh on 20 March, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 248 of 2021
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Resources Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, District. Ranchi
3. Chief Engineer, Waterways Circle, Water Resources Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribag,
District. Hazaribag
4. Superintending Engineer, Waterways Circle, Water Resources
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S.
Hazaribag, District Hazaribag.
5. Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Hazaribag, P.O.
& P.S. Hazaribag, District. Hazaribag
... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. Mahendra Narayan Singh, aged about 60 years, son of Late Sri
Bhikan Singh, resident of Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S.-Hazaribag,
(Jharkhand) District-Hazaribag
... Petitioner / Respondent
2. State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Department, Minor
Water Government Department, Government of Bihar, Irrigation
Building, Old Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Sachiwalaya, District Patna.
3. Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department, Government
of Bihar, Irrigation Building, Old Secretariat, P.O. & P.S.
Sachiwalaya, District Patna.
4. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Arrah, P.O., P.S. &
District Arrah.
5. Executive Engineer, National Rural Employment Programme,
Bhojpur, Arrah, P.O., P.S. & District Arrah.
6. Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Work
Division-I, Arrah, Bhojpur, P.O., P.S. & District Arrah.
... Respondents / Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Addl. A.G.-III
Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III
For Resp. No.1: Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, Advocate
For Resp.2-6: Mr. S.P. Roy, G.A.-Bihar
---------
Page 1 of 3
09/Dated: 20.03.2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)
1. Heard both sides.
2. This appeal is preferred by the State of Jharkhand challenging
the judgment 18.02.2021 in W.P. (S) No. 1673 of 2019 of the learned
Single Judge.
3. Admittedly, the respondent was initially employed as a Junior
Engineer under the Minor Water Resources Department in the
erstwhile State of Bihar. On bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar
and the formation of the State of Jharkhand, he was allotted to the
State of Jharkhand.
4. However, in the Last Pay Certificate issued to the respondent
by the State of Bihar, there was an endorsement that the respondent
owed to the State a sum of Rs.11,78,500/-.
5. The State of Jharkhand attempted to recover the same from the
respondent. In the meantime, the respondent had retired on 30th April
2019.
6. The question is whether the State of Jharkhand can recover the
said sum from the respondent or not.
7. Admittedly, there was no enquiry conducted by the State of
Bihar while the respondent/petitioner was in service in the said State
as to whether the respondent owes the State Rs.11,78,500/- and
whether the same is to be recovered from the monies owed to the
respondent.
8. The State of Jharkhand has also not taken any steps in that
regard and allowed the respondent to retire from service. The dues
claimed admittedly relate to period of 2003-04, long before the
respondent's retirement in 2019.
9. There cannot be recovery post retirement from the respondent
of the said alleged dues when there is no employer-employee
relationship with the appellants. The learned Single Judge has also
taken note of the fact that no departmental proceeding was pending
against the respondent before his retirement and no criminal case
was also pending against him. He also recorded that the liability to
pay the said amount has not been established in spite of many efforts
made by the appellants, but the same has been ordered to be
withheld and not paid to the respondent, and that there is no material
with regard to the liability of the respondent to pay the said amount to
the appellants.
10. We see no reason to disagree with the said finding of the
learned Single Judge and find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the
appeal fails and is dismissed.
11. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Manoj/ Pramanik/Cp.2
