Jharkhand High Court
Kaushal Kishor vs The State Of Jharkhand; on 8 September, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:27883
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3378 of 2025
----
Kaushal Kishor, aged about 38 years, son of Naresh Kumar, resident of
Village - Police Kendra, P.O.& P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. The Director General of Police, having its office at Police headquarters,
P.O and P.S- Dhurwa, HEC, Ranchi.
3. The AI G Cum Special Assistant to Dgp, having its office at having its
office at Police headquarters, P.O and P.S- Dhurwa, HEC, Ranchi
4. The Superintendent of Police, having its office at Garhwa, P.O & P.S-
Garhwa, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, AC to GP-II
----
03/ 08.09.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
for the respondents.
2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the
following reliefs:-
a) For a direction upon the respondents to immediately and
forthwith fix the pay of petitioner treating his date of joining
on 24.07.2012 and accordingly pay his current salary with
appropriate correction in pay fixation including increments
payable to him which has not been done as per the
direction of this Hon'ble court vide order dated 22.09.2017
passed in WP(S) No.7227/2012 and the decision taken by
the respondents vide memo no 1424. Dated 26-06-2023
wherein the date of appointment of the petitioner has been
treated as 24.07.2012.
b) For a direction upon the respondents to make payment of
the arrear of salary for the period of 19.12.2017 to till date
after making appropriate correction in fixation of his salary
including increments payable to him as per direction of this
Hon'ble Court passed in order dated 22.09.2017 passed in
c) For a direction upon the respondents to pay appropriate
cost and interest for withholding legitimate claim of
petitioner without any rhyme and reasons.
3. The petitioner was selected for the post of constable. The result
was published in the Hindustan newspaper on 01.06.2012, directing selected
candidates to join between 11.06.2012 and 25.06.2012. The petitioner did not
see this notice as he was not a subscriber to the newspaper and was unaware
2025:JHHC:27883
of the joining dates. He approached the authority by making representation
dated 21.09.2012. When his joining was not accepted, he filed a writ petition
WP(S) 7227 of 2012. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing that
he should be appointed from a retrospective date with all consequential
benefits including seniority. He was allowed to join as a constable but was not
given the full retrospective benefits from 24.07.2012. His salary was paid
treating him to be appointed on 19.12.2017.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
being paid a lower salary than others who were appointed at the same time
because his salary has not been properly fixed from the correct date of
appointment which is 24.07.2012. He further submits that the petitioner
currently receives Rs. 46,045 with a deduction of Rs. 3,180, while persons
appointed in the same transaction are getting Rs. 54,365 with Rs. 4,180
deduction. He also submits that respondents have not taken care of the clear
direction of Hon'ble Court passed vide order dated 21.09.2017 passed in
WP(S) No.7227 of 2012. He also submits that the respondents are duty bound
to make payment of arrears of salary for the period of 19.12.2017 till date and
the petitioner cannot be punished as there is no fault or delay on his behalf.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner
was already compensated for the delay in his appointment. In WP(S) No.
7227/2012 dated 21.09.2017, the Hon'ble High Court directed that the
petitioner should be considered for appointment from the retrospective date
but the court clearly stated he would receive a lump-sum compensation of
Rs.5,00,000 instead of back wages. He further submits that the petitioner was
appointed on 19.12.2017, and the compensation was paid. He further submits
that the petitioner's earlier appointment date of 24.07.2012 was considered
only for seniority, not for salary or financial benefits. He also submits that
under the principle of "No Work, No Pay," he cannot claim salary or
increments for a period when he did not actually work. The respondents have
followed the court's order properly and his current salary has been fixed based
on his joining date 19.12.2017.
6. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, it
is evident that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in its earlier judgment in
W.P.(S) No. 7227 of 2012 made a clear direction that while the petitioner will
be granted notional seniority from 24.07.2012, he will also to receive a lump-
sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- specifically in place of back wages.
2025:JHHC:27883
Therefore, the petitioner was not granted salary or other monetary benefits for
the period prior to his actual joining on 19.12.2017.
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions, I find that
since the petitioner did not render service prior to 19.12.2017, he is not
entitled for salary or increments for that period. Further, there is no material on
record to suggest that the respondents have violated the earlier order of this
Court. The appointment was made in compliance with the said order,
compensation was paid, and seniority was granted from the said date. Salary
has been fixed as per the actual date of joining. Thus, I find no merit in this
writ petition.
8. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
