Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Manju Rani Prasad And Others vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another ... ... on 19 September, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 784 of 2024
Smt. Manju Rani Prasad and others ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Another ... ... Opp. Parties
With
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 848 of 2023
Smt. Mala Ghosh and others ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... Opp. Parties
With
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 881 of 2023
Manjula Palit & others ... ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Another ... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Aniket Prasoon, Advocate
: Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AG-III
: Ms. Rishi Bharti, AC to AG-III
: Ms. Sweta Shukla, AC to AAG-II
---
20/19.09.2025 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Mr. K. Srinivasan, Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand has appeared before this Court in-person
and has submitted that a fresh reasoned order has been passed which is
dated 11th September 2025. The reasoned order, as annexed with the
show-cause reads as follows:
"Government of Jharkhand
Rural Development Department
Reasoned Order
For Compliance of The Order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi in W.P. (S) No. 6042 of 2015 and
analogous cases
1. In W.P. (S) No. 6042 of 2015, W.P. (S) No. 6631 of 2010,
W.P. (S) No. 443 of 2011, W.P. (S) No. 1227 of 2011, W.P. (S)
No. 2008 of 2011, W.P. (S) No. 4486 of 2011, W.P. (S) No.
6226 of 2011, W.P. (S) No. 6813 of 2013, W.P. (S) No. 3417 of
2015, W.P. (S) No. 42 of 2016, W.P. (S) No. 418 of 2016, W.P.
(S) No. 2838 of 2016, W.P. (S) No. 2763 of 2017, W.P. (S) No.
6508 of 2017 and W.P. (S) No. 433 of 2020 were filed in
Jharkhand high court for certain reliefs for violation of certain
Fundamental rights. On prima facie, it appears that there is no
violation of fundamental rights as enshrined in the constitution.
2. In para 57 of order dated 19.05.2023 of writ petitions, the
impugned Office Order No.21 dated 03.02.2011 as well as the
impugned Letter No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018 both decisions of
council of ministers issued by the Rural Development
Department, Ranchi are set-aside to enable the Principal
Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi to take a
fresh decision in accordance with law taking into consideration
the issues raised by the petitioners as recorded above and also
in the light of the observations made by this Court in this
judgement.
3. The decision of declaration or non declaration of being
Government servant to an employee was not taken by the
Secretary of the Department but it was taken by Council of
Ministers of the State of Jharkhand. The court has not observed
this fact neither the court was appraised in this regard.
4. The council of Minister has constitutional status as per
Indian constitution article 163 and 164. The entire policy for
the state related to the subjects covered under list 2 of the 7th
schedule of Indian Constitution is taken by Council ministers of
the state government. As per decision taken on any policy by the
council of ministers, the state government officials execute the
decision.
6. The departmental Letter No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018, which
was set aside by the Hon'ble Court, was issued as per the
decision of council of ministers, meeting held on dated
15.05.2018.
7. That it is settled principle of law that authority who is taking
decision only can alter or modify its own decision.
Here in this case, the secretary to the department is not
a competent authority to modify, change or alter any kind of
decision taken by the superior authority i.e. council of ministers
of the State Government. So, it is clear that The secretary of
rural development is not competent to pass a reasoned order.
8. As the secretary didn't have the authority, this fact was
brought before the court through the affidavit dated
30.07.2025, 24.07.2025, 17.04.2025, 18.03.2025, 03.03.2025,
05.02.2025, 17.01.2025 in cont. case civil no. 848/2023 and
similar contempt cases.
9. During the hearing of this contempt case, the petitioners
never clarified this issue in the court. It was submitted humbly
to the court that in the abovementioned situation the entire
situation has been brought before the council of minister for
taking a decision sympathetically, even though as per existing
rule and regulation of the state government and recruitment
conditions given in the advertisement, didn't allow them to
consider as permanent government servant thereby
demonstrating the bonafide steps taken by the department in
compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble court.
This matter was brought before the court through affidavit
dated 24.07.2025, 17.04.2025, 18.03.2025, 03.03.2025,
05.02.2025, 17.01.2025 in cont. case civil no. 848/2023
10. The court has taken the example of running contempt (civil)
case nо 1034/2023, Rupa Kumari Sinha vs State in other court
as an example. There is a major difference between the
Judgment of these analogous cases and the judgement of Rupa
Kumari Sinha Court case.
In this case the court set aside the impugned council of
ministers decision issued through Letter No. 1845 dated
16.05.2018 and ordered to take a fresh decision but in other
w.p (s) no 4792/2018, Rupa Kumari Sinha vs state and
contempt (civil) case no 1034/2023, wrong facts were submitted
by petitioner advocate which led cabinet decisions were
quashed and Petitioner's advocate misguided the court to
declare the petitioner as Govt. Servant.
11. It was pointed out by the department that based on wrong
submission of petitioners' advocate, order was passed in WP (S)
4792/2018 by the court. The petitioner in the said contempt
case no.1034/2023 never disputed the facts of affidavit filed by
the department.
Unfortunately, the court didn't take the cognizance of the issues
raised by the department. So, the department is preparing for
filing a suitable appeal i.e. L.P.A. against the order dated
12.07.2023 in W.P. s No 4792 of 2018, Rupa Kumari Sinha vs
State.
12. As the other court didn't take the cognizance of the issues
raised by the department and court was making many physical
appearances in the court, under the said condition certain
payments were made to the petitioner even though the secretary
was not authorised for that. In that said contempt case
1034/2023 and WP(S) 4792/2018 case, department is preparing
to file the L.P.A. as early as possible.
13. It is unfortunate that the said WP(S) 4792/2018 and its
relevant contempt case issue is taken as an example in this
contempt case no 881/2023. It is noted that all these writ
petitions order have not attained finality in High Court or
Supreme Court. The department has the right to appeal in High
Court and Supreme Court. But, suppressing these facts, the
petitioners have wrongly filed the petitions with wrong facts for
initiating contempt of court.
14. After considering all these issues, the department has filed a
civil review in Jharkhand high court with Civil Review
application filing no:10075/2025. It appears that till the
outcome of the review petition, the proceedings may be stayed
in all petitions filed by the petitioners for initiating contempt
proceedings arising out of Wp. No.6042/2015 and analogous
cases order dated: 19.05.2023. Regarding the stay of contempt
related proceedings cases contempt case no 881/2023, cont.
case no.848/2023, conte. case 784/2024. The steps for early
mentioning of civil review may be taken in the court.
15. It is also noted that in JHC the filing of application/
Counter Affidavit/ I.A. can only be made by physical mode
which be also delay the process of justice delivery.
16. In Supreme Court, both online and offline are allowed and
JHC may be requested to consider speedy delivery of justice by
allowing online filing of various documents, applications and
procedures.
17. The above mentioned details in the order is not as such
required to pass a reasoned order but seems but the petitioner
is pressuring for passing a reasoned order. Abovementioned
order is passed even though above mentioned details have been
mentioned in various affidavits filed by the rural development
department in High Court in cont. case petition 881/2023, cont.
case petition 848/2023 and cont. case 784/2024 and all cont.
case petitions arising out of the said W.P(S) No. 6042/2015 and
analogous cases.
Sd/-
(K. Srinivasan)
Secretary to the Government"
3. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of
Jharkhand has submitted that the matter is now pending before the
Cabinet and he is completely helpless with respect to complying with
the orders passed by this Court. He has submitted that the current
status of the pending matter before the Cabinet can be placed on
record by the Chief Secretary who is supposed to be in-charge of the
matters to be placed before the Cabinet. He is not aware about the
present status nor he is aware as to by what time the matter could be
taken up by the Cabinet.
4. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the State is directed to
seek instructions from the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand
with regard to the present status in connection with the final decision
which is required to be taken by the Cabinet which is a step towards
compliance of the orders passed by this Court. The affidavit should
also indicate as to the likely time within which the decision could be
taken by the Cabinet. The affidavit be filed within a period of 10 days
from today.
5. Learned counsels for the petitioners have raised serious
objection with regard to paragraphs 10 to 17 of the aforesaid reasoned
order to submit that the statements made therein are ex-facie
contemptuous and it casts aspersion not only on the court, but also on
the advocates who had assisted the court in W.P.(S) No. 4792 of 2018
and connected contempt petition , which was the order passed by co-
ordinate Bench following the orders passed by this Court. They have
submitted that it is a case which calls for initiation of a criminal
contempt against the Secretary.
6. This Court has gone through the reasoned order and is prima-
facie of the view that the statements made therein cast serious
aspersions on the court as well as on the advocates. However, the
Secretary appearing in-person has submitted that he regrets whatever
has been mentioned in the said paragraphs of the reasoned order, but
at the same time, he has stated that he did not intend to undermine the
majesty of the Court. He has also tendered unqualified apology before
this Court and has sought permission to allow him to pass a fresh
order after withdrawing the order already passed by him. However,
this Court is of the considered view that any such prayer is required to
be made through an affidavit.
7. At the request of the Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Government of Jharkhand, the matter is directed to be
posted on 10th October 2025.
8. The affidavit of the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand
should also be filed within the time as mentioned above.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
19th September 2025
Pankaj
