Pintu Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3114 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Pintu Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 16 April, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                        2026:JHHC:11398

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    W.P.(S) No. 2724 of 2023
                                .........

Pintu Kumar, aged about 38 years, Son of Saryu Ram, resident of H.No. 133, Shiv Chabutara, Sultani, P.O. Palamau, P.S. Palamau, District-Palamau (Jharkhand).

..... Petitioner (s) Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O Dhurwa P.S. Jagannathpur, Dist Ranchi.

2. Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O Dhurwa P.S. Jagannathpur, Dist Ranchi.

3. Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O Dhurwa P.S. Jagannathpur, Dist Ranchi.

4. Binay Kumar, father's name not known, presently working as Assistant Engineer, having its office at Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, P.O., G.P.O., P.S. Kutchery, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).

5. Kapil Majhi, father's name not known, presently working as Assistant Engineer, Department of Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O Dhurwa P.S. Jagannathpur, Dist Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s) .........

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN .......

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Resp.-State: Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, A.C. to G.A.-IV For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate .........

C.A.V. ON 10/04/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:16/04/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the

2026:JHHC:11398

petitioner for the following reliefs:-

i. For issuance of writ(s), order(s) and / or direction(s) for quashing the part of the notification issued vide Memo No. 1422(S) dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure-5) issued by Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, wherein the juniors to the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and despite the petitioner being senior by virtue of gradation list, the petitioner has been left out without assigning any reason or in the alternative revise the notification by granting promotion to the petitioner as per their seniority provided In their gradation list;

And ii. For issuance of writ(s), order(s) and / or direction(s) or in the writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the final gradation list issued vide Memo No. 650(S) dated 23.02.2021 and grant regular promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil);

3. The brief facts of the case are that initially

Jharkhand Public Service Commission ("JPSC" in short)

conducted Combined Junior Engineer Recruitment

Examination, 2012 in which the petitioner stood

successful. Thereafter, JPSC recommended the name of the

petitioner for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer

(Civil). In terms of the recommendation of JPSC, the

Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department,

Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi issued Office Order as

contained in Memo No. 3671(S) dated 12.04.2013

appointing the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer

2026:JHHC:11398

(Civil) under the cadre of Road Construction Department,

Government of Jharkhand in the Pay Scale of P.B.II 9300-

34800, with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. In terms of the Office

Order issued by the Department, the petitioner submitted

his joining. Thereafter, the Road Construction Department,

Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi through its Under

Secretary issued an Order publishing a consolidated

seniority list of Junior Engineers, which is contained in

Memo No. 5506(S) dated 13.11.2019, which was

provisional. Thereafter, a final seniority list was published

vide order dated 23.02.2021.

          Subsequently,      the     JPSC        convened        a

Departmental    Promotion    Committee     ("DPC"     in   short)

meeting on 14.03.2023, wherein a recommendation was

made for promotion of Junior Engineers to the post of

Assistant Engineer. In terms of the said recommendation

the Road Construction Department, Government of

Jharkhand issued a Notification contained in Memo No.

1422 (S) dated 22.03.2023 which has been issued under

the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction

Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby list of

Junior Engineers were published who were promoted to the

post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the pay scale of P.B.-II

Rs. 9300- 34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- (revised

2026:JHHC:11398

pay scale Pay Matrix Level-9). In the said Notification dated

22.03.2023, the juniors have been promoted to the post of

Assistant Engineer (Civil).

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made

representations to the Secretary, Road Construction

Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letters dated

28.03.2023 and 20.04.2023.

Submission of the petitioner.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the juniors have

been promoted and the petitioner has been discriminated.

In the final Seniority List dated 23.02.2021, the petitioner

was placed at serial number 1204 and the respondent

number 4 and 5 were placed at serial number 1219 and

1221 respectively. The petitioner was much senior than the

persons who were already promoted and the petitioner's

case was not considered for promotion to the post of

Assistant Engineer (Civil).

Submission of the Respondent:

5. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner

did not submit the full-service history and the property

return details was not received from the petitioner and

therefore, the petitioner's case could not be considered for

promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil).

2026:JHHC:11398

6. The petitioner has filed Rejoinder and has

submitted that the Departmental letter dated 29.08.2022

wherein all the Junior Engineers were directed to submit

their property details and the petitioner has categorically

stated at paragraph-10 of the Rejoinder that he had no

knowledge of the said letter. The petitioner has duly

submitted the required documents along with details of

full-service history and property return which was duly

acknowledged by the authorized representative of the

respondents which is apparent from Annexure-4 of the writ

petition. Further the Vigilance Clearance Report is to be

acquired by the respondents and the petitioner has no role

to play in acquisition of the same. The service history of the

petitioner was already on record.

7. Similar issue fell for consideration before this

Court in a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 7659 of 2023.

The impugned order dated 22.03.2023 which is subject

matter of the present writ petition was also challenged in

W.P.(S) No. 7659 of 2023. In W.P.(S) No. 7659 of 2023 the

case of the petitioners were not considered for promotion to

the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on the ground that the

petitioners did not submit their service history and also

details with regard to their properties and Character Report

in spite of various reminders.

2026:JHHC:11398

8. The writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 7659 of

2023 was allowed vide order dated 06.12.2024 in the

following terms:-

"8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the document annexed with the respective affidavit it appears that as per the recommendation of the D.P.C. meeting, the notification as contained in Memo No.1422(S) dated 22.3.2023 has been issued; which was the list of Junior engineers promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in which several juniors to the petitioners have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer.

It further transpires from the respective impugned reasoned orders while rejecting the petitioners' representations, it has been stated that they did not submit their service history in the Department due to which vigilance clearance remained un- received from the Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance), Government of Jharkhand. It is further stated that the petitioners also did not submit their respective details with regard to their properties (Asset declaration) and character report. Thus, for want of the aforesaid details, they were declared disqualified from consideration for promotion.

11. It further appears from the para 8 of the Writ application whereby it has been specifically contended that the petitioners in view of the anticipated exercise of promotion, duly submitted their respective service book, the details of movable and immovable properties in the prescribed proforma, character certificates and other required documents to the competent authority of the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand which has not been specifically controverted by the respondent in their counter affidavit. It shows that petitioners have duly submitted the required documents to the department.

13. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the reasoned orders dated 18.09.2023 (as contained in Annexure-8 series) issued under the signature 6 of the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, are hereby, quashed and set aside.

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to grant promotion to the petitioners to the promotional post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) with Pay-scale PB-II, Rs.9,300- 34,800/-, Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- (revised pay-scale Pay Matrix Level 9) under Jharkhand Engineering Services Category 2, since the date when similarly situated or juniors were granted promotion to the said post, with all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits.

It is made clear that the formal order to this effect shall be issued as early as possible, but not beyond the period of ten weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

14. As a result, the instant writ application is allowed in the manner indicated hereinabove. Pending I.A., if any, is also closed. However, there is no order as to cost."

9. The order dated 06.12.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.

7659 of 2023 was challenged by the State Government in

2026:JHHC:11398

L.P.A. No. 314 of 2025 and the said Letters Patent Appeal

was dismissed vide order dated 09.03.2026 in the following

terms:-

"We have considered the rival contentions, and we are satisfied that no case is made out to admit this appeal. The reasons for this conclusion are set out briefly hereafter.

9. This is admittedly not a case where the original petitioners were ineligible for promotion for lack of any qualifications, experience, etc.

10. By a letter dated 29th August, 2022, issued by the Joint Secretary to the departmental head, the departmental head was required to call upon the original petitioners and other employees to furnish certain details/documents regarding their service history, character report, list of assets, etc. The record shows that this letter, dated 29th August, 2022 or the request contained therein, was never communicated to the original petitioners. There is a finding of fact to this effect in paragraph no.10 of the learned Single Judge's impugned order. Even the pleadings to this effect were never denied by the appellants in their counter-affidavit.

11. Insofar as the public advertisement is concerned, the learned Single Judge has referred to the principles under Order V Rule 20 of the CPC and ruled that substituted service through paper publication cannot be resorted to in the very first instance and that too, by a department against its own employees working in the department. Even the principle of fairness required the respondents to be given an adequate opportunity to produce documents/information in their possession, assuming that such documents/information were a necessary precondition for their consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil).

12. Ultimately, it was found that the original petitioners were not only eligible but also fulfilled the standards necessary for promotion even after the furnishing of the details/information. Thus, for hyper-technical considerations, for which the original petitioners were really not to be blamed, they were denied their right to be considered for promotion. It was in the above peculiar circumstances that the learned Single Judge directed their promotion effective from the date on which their juniors were considered and granted promotion, along with all consequential benefits.

13. The decision in Dr. Amal Sathpati (Supra) will not apply to a situation of the present nature. This decision relies upon Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768 at paragraph no.19, which is the paragraph relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants- State.

14. Dharamdeo Das (Supra) holds that promotion is effective from the date it is granted, not from the date a vacancy occurs in the subject post or the post itself is created. Here, the original petitioners are not claiming promotion from either the date of the vacancy or the date the promotional post was created. They have claimed and are now granted promotion only from the date on which their juniors were considered and granted promotion.

15. Further, this is a case where the learned Single Judge's

2026:JHHC:11398

impugned order has already been complied with by the appellants-State, no doubt, subject to the outcome of this L.P.A. The order dated 19th February, 2026, now produced before us, shows that the original petitioners were not directly granted promotion; their cases were placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The DPC considered the matter and, upon doing so, found that the original petitioners are entitled to be promoted from the date their juniors were promoted. This is also not a case where the principle of no work, no pay would apply, because the original petitioners were always willing to work, but for reasons the learned Single Judge correctly found arbitrary, they were denied such promotion.

16. For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that there is no merit in this appeal and, consequently, we dismiss the same without any order for costs."

10. The order dated 06.12.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.

7659 of 2023 was implemented by the State Government

and the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 7659 of 2023 have been

granted promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil)

with retrospective effect by Notification as contained in

Memo No. 3995(S) dated 16.10.2025 issued by the Road

Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand.

Further, the monetary benefits have also been granted by

Resolution bearing Memo No. 723(S) dated 19.02.2026.

11. The petitioner case was not considered for

promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on the

ground that the service history of the petitioner was not

submitted by the petitioner due to which Vigilance

Clearance remained un-received from the Cabinet

Secretariat and Vigilance Department, Government of

Jharkhand.

12. The State Government has relied upon

2026:JHHC:11398

newspaper publication dated 07.10.2020 as well as

newspaper publication dated 24.12.2020; whereby the

Junior Engineers were directed to submit their complete

service history and property returns in prescribed format in

the Department.

13. Whether the State Government was justified by

treating the paper publication as valid notice to the

petitioner or not is one of the questions to be decided by

this Court.

14. In this regard it would be profitable here to refer

to Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

"20. Substituted service.--(1) Where the Court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court House, and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on 11 business or personally worked for gain, or in such other manner as the Court thinks fit. [(1-A) Where the Court acting under sub-rule (1) orders service by an advertisement in a newspaper, the newspaper shall be a daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain.]............"

15. From bare perusal of the aforesaid rule, it is clear

when the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way,

then the advertisement in newspaper can be given. In the

instant case, instead of directly communicating with the

petitioner, the State Government has given notice through

the newspaper. It is unexpected and not humanly possible

2026:JHHC:11398

that the employees would keep looking at the notice column

for there being any notice from their department, that too

when the employees are working in the organization and

drawing regular salary and other service benefit; as such,

this Court finds that the State Government was not

justified by giving communication to the petitioner through

the newspaper.

16. Learned counsel for the State Government has

further relied upon the letter dated 29.08.2022 issued by

the Joint Secretary to Departmental Head to inform all the

Junior Engineers to update their service history and

property statement which has been specifically denied by

the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the rejoinder.

It further appears from the paragraph 9 of the

Writ Petition and paragraph 11 of the rejoinder; whereby it

has been specifically contended that the petitioner has duly

submitted their respective service book, the details of

movable and immovable properties in the prescribed

proforma, character certificates and other required

documents to the competent authority of the Road

Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand

which has not been specifically controverted by the

respondent in their counter affidavit.

2026:JHHC:11398

It shows that petitioner has duly submitted the

required documents to the department.

Findings:

17. In view of the aforesaid facts and the order dated

06.12.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7659 of 2023 read with

order dated 09.03.2026 passed in L.P.A. No. 314 of 2025,

the reasons for not considering the case of the petitioner for

promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer cannot be

sustained. The issue is squarely covered by the order dated

06.12.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7659 of 2023 read with

order dated 09.03.2026 passed in L.P.A. No. 314 of 2025

arising out of the same Notification, denial of promotion to

the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil)

would be ex-facie discriminatory and unsustainable.

18. Accordingly, the respondents -State Government

are directed to grant promotion to the petitioner to the

promotional post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) with pay

scale P.B.-II, Rs. 9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.

5400/- (revised Pay Scale Pay Matrix Level-9) under

Jharkhand Engineering Services Category-2, since the date

when the similarly situated or juniors were granted

promotion to the said post, with all consequential benefits,

including monetary benefits.

2026:JHHC:11398

19. It is made clear that the formal order to this

effect shall be issued as early as possible but not beyond

the period of eight weeks from the date of

receipt/production of copy of this order.

20. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands

allowed. Pending IAs, if any, are closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated16/04/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R

Uploaded on 20.04.2026