[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:10342
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 839 of 2025
1. Ajay Kumar Choudhary
2. Yogesh Bihari Verma
3. Hridya Ranjan
4. Manoj Kumar Singh
5. Satish Kumar
6. Vijay Kumar Singh
7. Manoj Kr. Singh
8. Ranjeet Singh
9. Satyendra Kumar Sinha
10. Dhananjay Kumar
11. Ladley Hasan
12. Subodh Kumar
13. Md. Firoz Ahmad
14. Vishal Kumar Ram
15. Yaswant Verma
16. Babita Shukla
17. Angel Tarun Bhownra
18. Punakant Dadel
19. Sushil Kumar Sharma
20. Smita Thakur
21. Chandra Mani Kachhap
22. Satish Kumar
23. Manoj Prakash ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mr. Amitabh Kaushal, Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi ..... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners: Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
For O.P.No.2: Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C-IV
-----
08/10.04.2026 The present contempt application has been filed against the O.P.No.2
alleging wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 01.05.2024
passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6588/2022.
2. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned S.C-IV appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2,
refers to the minutes of the meetings dated 29.07.2025 of the Departmental
Promotion Committee, the minutes of the meetings dated 16.12.2025 of the
Departmental Establishment Committee, the office order dated 18.12.2025 and
letter No. 1706 dated 31.12.2025 (Annexures- A, B, C & E respectively to the
show cause affidavit dated 20.01.2026) and submits that vide Annexures- A, B
2026:JHHC:10342
& C, the petitioners along with the other persons of the Department of
Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand have been provided promotion
from the post of LDC to UDC as well as from UDC to Head Clerk. Accordingly,
they have also been given the related pay scale including the grade pay. So far
as Annexure-E is concerned, the same has been issued with respect to the
petitioner Nos 1 & 2 and one Chandan Kumar Mitra, who have not been
provided promotion on the ground that on the date of consideration, they had
already retired.
3. It is thus submitted that the aforesaid order of this Court has now been
complied.
4. As against this, Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submits that the aforesaid minutes of the meetings/office order/letter cannot be
said to be in true compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court as the
authorities including the O.P.No.2 have not considered the petitioners' claim
under the provisions of Rule 3(iv) read with Rule 8(i)(ii) of the Jharkhand State
Commercial Taxes Department Clerical Services Cadre (Recruitment, Promotion
and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2016. It is also submitted that as a
consequence of the aforesaid decisions of the authorities, though the petitioners
were having higher pay scale/grade pay by virtue of financial upgradations as a
result of grant of first, second and third ACPs/MACP on the date of
consideration, they have been put to the lower pay scale/grade pay. Thus, the
said decisions of the authorities including the O.P.No.2 cannot be said to be in
compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court.
5. Be that as it may.
6. Since the authorities including the O.P.No.2 have taken an appropriate
decision in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court, I am of the view that
no case of contempt is made out against the O.P.No.2.
7. The contempt proceeding as against the O.P.No.2 is hereby dropped.
2026:JHHC:10342
8. The present contempt application stands disposed of.
9. The petitioners are however at liberty to take appropriate recourse as
permissible under law against the aforesaid decisions taken by the authorities.
Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
