Pradip Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 626 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Pradip Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 February, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                           2026:JHHC:2843
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    W.P.(S) No. 5485 of 2018
                                .........

Pradip Prasad, aged 59 years, son of Late Gajanan Prasad, resident of Korahat, P.O & P.S Chakradharpur, District West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. ..... Petitioner (s) Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel Administrative Reform and Rajbhasa, having office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

3. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel Administrative Reform and Rajbhasa, having office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s) .........

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

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate Ms. Shreya Shukla, Adv For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II .........

C.A.V. ON: 15/01/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:03/02/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a

writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent-State of

Jharkhand to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post

of Deputy Secretary with effect from 24.6.2013 and further

to the post of Joint Secretary with effect from 27.7.2018.

The petitioner has also prayed for the grant of all

consequential benefits.

In addition to the above, the petitioner prays that the

notification dated 3.10.2019 (Annexure-7) and the

notification dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure-8), by which he

2026:JHHC:2843 has been granted notional promotion to the post of

Additional Collector/Deputy Secretary and to the post of

Joint Secretary, respectively, be quashed as they suffer

from gross illegality and arbitrariness.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had

submitted that the petitioner, after qualifying for the 37th

Bihar Public Service Examination, joined service in the year

1993. After the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the

petitioner was allotted the Jharkhand cadre, and he joined

his services in the State of Jharkhand in 2003. The

otherwise unblemished career of the petitioner was

adversely affected when an order of minor punishment was

passed against him vide order dated 20.2.2013. The

petitioner assailed the same before this Court by filing a

writ petition, which was registered as W.P.(S) No. 4548 of

2013. This Court, vide its order dated 8.03.2016, set aside

the punishment order dated 20.02.2013 and quashed the

disciplinary proceeding. The respondent-authority accepted

the order of this Court and, vide order dated 19.08.2016,

recalled its order of punishment.

4. Learned counsel had also submitted that after

recalling the punishment order dated 20.02.2013, the

respondent-authorities, acting illegally, issued a fresh

show-cause to the petitioner on 27.08.2016. The petitioner

2026:JHHC:2843 immediately filed another writ petition, W.P.(S) No. 5823 of

2016. This Court, after considering the entire case, was

pleased to set aside the show cause dated 27.08.2016 vide

order dated 5.07.2017.

It has been further submitted that the petitioner is

placed at serial number 664; however, despite orders

passed by this Court quashing the order of punishment,

persons below the petitioner on the gradation list were

promoted vide notification dated 24.06.2013. Persons

junior to the petitioner were also granted promotion to the

post of Joint Secretary on 25.7.2018.

It was also submitted that the respondent-authorities

granted notional promotion to the post of Additional

Collector/Deputy Secretary with effect from 24.06.2013 to

the petitioner vide notification dated 3.10.2019 but without

financial benefits. Thus, the petitioner was thereafter

granted promotion to the post of Joint Secretary vide

notification dated 17.11.2020, but again financial benefit

was not granted from the date of eligibility, i.e., the date

from which his juniors were granted promotion -

25.7.2018.

5. During the argument, the Ld. Counsel appearing for

the petitioner further submitted that during the pendency

of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has been granted

2026:JHHC:2843 promotion to the post of Additional Secretary vide

notification dated 26.6.2023, with effect from 17.11.2021.

The notification is produced before this Court, which was

taken on record.

In crux, he had contended that the petitioner has been

deprived of financial benefit in the scale of Deputy

Secretary from 24.6.2013 and in the scale of Joint

Secretary from 27.7.2018. Further, on promotion to the

post of additional secretary, there is one additional

increment which is given, which, because of the non-grant

of scale in the Joint Secretary since 2018, has resulted in

lower pay in the post of Additional Secretary. This action is

having civil consequences which suffer from gross

arbitrariness and violation of the principles of natural

justice.

6. Ld. Counsel had also argued that the petitioner is

entitled to be promoted once persons junior to him have

been granted promotion. He reiterated that once the

punishment order was quashed, the effect would go to the

date of the punishment order itself. The principle of 'no

work, no pay' would not apply to the case at hand, as it was

the respondent-authorities who prevented the petitioner

from working at the post to which he was otherwise

entitled.

2026:JHHC:2843

7. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the petitioner

retired from services in September 2022, and considering

that it was the respondent's illegal action of awarding minor

punishment and further inaction on part of the respondent

by complying with the order of this Court in true letter and

spirit that led to the delay in the petitioner's promotion. He

contended that even after recall of the punishment order,

the respondent kept the matter with respect to the

petitioner pending for years together, which incapacitated

the petitioner in discharging his duty on the promotional

post of Deputy Secretary and Joint Secretary from the date

of his eligibility. Thus, the petitioner will not be hit by the

principle of 'no work no pay'.

8. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel representing the

respondent vehemently disputes the arguments of the

petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner has no

right to promotion but has right 'only to be considered for

promotion'. It is submitted that extending the benefits to

the petitioner from the date when the persons junior to the

petitioner were promoted would amount to giving

retrospective effect to the judgment.

The Ld. Counsel representing the respondent-State

has placed heavy reliance on Rule 58 of the Jharkhand

(Bihar) Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Finance

2026:JHHC:2843 Rules to submit that even if the argument of the petitioner

is accepted, no benefit could be extended contrary to law.

Lastly, by placing reliance on the counter-affidavit

dated 8.12.2021, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent-state

has submitted that the petitioner's Annual Confidential

Report was not upto the mark, and as such, the petitioner

was not promoted to the post of Joint Secretary in 2018,

but rather in the year 2020, only when the petitioner was

deemed fit for promotion considering his Annual

Confidential Report.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent-State also

submitted that the notification dated 26.6.2023 shows that

the respondent-State has been acting in a diligent manner,

as the petitioner has been given a promotion, along with all

benefits, to the post of Additional Secretary from the date of

his entitlement, i.e., 17.11.2021.

10. In reply to the arguments of the state, the Ld. Counsel

for the petitioner rejoins by submitting that Rule 58 of the

Jharkhand (Bihar) Service Code and Rule 74 of the

Jharkhand Finance Rules are based on the principle of 'no

pay, no work'. However, the same would not apply to the

disadvantage of the petitioner, when it was the respondent-

authorities themselves owing to which the petitioner could

not work on the post to which he was otherwise eligible.

2026:JHHC:2843

11. Heard the parties and considered the submissions

made at the bar and the documents on record. The

following issues are carved out for the purpose of

adjudication of the instant case: -

a. Whether the petitioner has a right to be promoted from the date when his juniors were granted promotion, taking into consideration the punishment order and the orders passed by this Court in WP(S) 4548 of 2013 and WP(S) 5823 of 2016 ?

b. Whether Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand (Bihar) Finance Rules prevent the petitioner from claiming financial and other benefits for the period prior to the grant of promotion?

12. Coming to the first issue, the facts narrated

hereinabove that the petitioner was appointed to the

services in the year 1993, and after the bifurcation of the

State of Bihar, the petitioner was allotted the State of

Jharkhand, where he joined his services in the year 2003.

The admitted facts of the case are that persons junior to the

petitioner were promoted to the posts of Deputy Secretary

and Joint Secretary on 24.06.2013 and 25.07.2018,

respectively. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued

that the petitioner has a right to promotion when the

persons junior to him were promoted and further that the

2026:JHHC:2843 order of punishment and the fresh show cause notice were

set aside by this Court, holding it to be illegal.

It is the case of the respondent-State that at the

relevant time when the persons junior to the petitioner were

granted promotion, the punishment order dated 20.2.2013

and the show cause dated 27.08.2016 were in effect. The

order of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4548 of 2013 and W.P.(S)

No. 5823 of 2016 came into effect later only.

13. This Court, in the case of Daya Ram v. State of

Jharkhand (W.P.(S) 4276 of 2024), has held that once a

junior person is promoted, a right accrues in favour of the

petitioner. The relevant portion of the judgment is

reproduced as under: -

"5. In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that though the promotion is not a right of an employee, but the right of consideration is accrued when junior to the employee concerned has been considered for promotion...."

14. Now coming to the question of the punishment order

dated 20.2.2013 and the fresh show cause dated 27.8.2016

issued against the petitioner; this Court set aside the

punishment order dated 20.2.2013 in the order dated

8.3.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4548 of 2013. This Court

finds it necessary to quote the operative portion of the

order. The same is as under:-

"6. On the cumulative effect of facts and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of punishment dated

2026:JHHC:2843 20.02.2013 being not legally sustainable is, hereby, quashed and set aside."

From bare perusal of the above-mentioned order, it is

evident that the punishment order dated 20.02.2013 was

set aside on the ground that it was not legally tenable.

15. The fresh show cause dated 27.08.2016 was also

quashed vide order dated 05.07.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.

5823 of 2016. The relevant portion of this judgment is

reproduced as under: -

"6...Therefore, issuance of the show cause notice dated 27.8.2016 warrants interference by this Court on the same is set at naught to meet the ends of justice"

16. The aforesaid orders clearly establish that the order of

punishment dated 20.02.2013 and the fresh show cause

notice dated 27.08.2016 were 'set at naught'. It is a trite law

that once a punishment order is interfered with, the effect

of such order goes to the date when the punishment order

was passed. Reference is made to the case of Upendra

Kumar Bhagat v. The High Court of Judicature at

Patna through its Registrar General reported in (2025

(2) PLJR 321). The effect is always retrospective, unless it

is made operative in a prospective manner. Thus, once the

order dated 20.2.2013 and the show cause dated 27.8.2016

were set aside, they cannot be given any bearing on the

issue of promotion.

2026:JHHC:2843

17. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to address the

issue pertaining to the Annual Confidential Report

pertaining to the petitioner with the contention that it was

not upto the mark. However, in the supplementary counter-

affidavit dated 21.10.2020, the respondent-state has

submitted that the petitioner could not be considered for

promotion as the ACR of the petitioner was incomplete.

18. This Court, in the case of Daya Ram v. State of

Jharkhand (W.P.(S) 4276 of 2024), has already held that

non-consideration of the petitioner on the ground of

incomplete ACR is not tenable in the eyes of law. The

employee is not responsible for the preparation of his ACR.

If his ACR is not completed, the same cannot be said to his

fault. In any view of the matter, if there is any defect in the

ACR, to the disadvantage of the petitioner, it needs to be

communicated to the petitioner.

19. Thus, in attending facts of this case, it is held that the

petitioner was illegally deprived of being promoted, as there

exists a right to be promoted on the date when his juniors

were promoted.

20. The next issue pertains to the benefits to which the

petitioner would be entitled. The Ld. Counsel for the

respondent state has vehemently opposed the grant of any

financial benefit to the petitioner in terms of Rule 58 of the

2026:JHHC:2843 Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand

(Bihar) Finance Rules and the "no pay, no work" principle.

This Court finds it necessary to quote the relevant rules

relied upon by the State: -

"Rule 58: (a) Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules and to the provisions of clause (b) of this rule, a Government servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date on which he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceased to discharge those duties."

"Rule 74. All authorities which are competent to sanction revision of pay or the grant of concession to Government servants should bear in mind that retrospective effect should not be given to financial sanctions, except in exceptional circumstances, without the special approval of Government."

21. This Court, in the case of Singrai Tuti v. State of

Jharkhand (W.P.(S) No. 4023 of 2024), placing reliance on

several pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India and the Division Benches of this Court, has held that

the said rules would not come to the aid of the State when

there are no latches on the part of the petitioner. In the case

at hand, this Court has already returned a finding that the

petitioner was not at fault. The order of punishment dated

20.2.2013 and the fresh show cause notice dated 27.8.2016

were already set aside by this Court.

Further, as juniors of the petitioner were granted

promotion, there was no occasion for the State to have kept

the promotion of the petitioner pending only to grant it at

much later dates, i.e., on 3.10.2019 to the post of the

Deputy Secretary (Annexure-7) and 17.11.2020 to the post

of Joint Secretary.

2026:JHHC:2843

22. As such, this Court is having no hesitation in holding

that the petitioner is entitled to all financial and

consequential benefits from the date when the persons

junior to the petitioner were granted promotion, i.e.,

24.6.2013 and 27.7.2018.

23. In light of the above discussion and finding, the

following directions are issued: -

a. The notification dated 3.10.2019 is set aside to the extent that its grants only notional promotion to the petitioner with effect from 24.6.2013; b. The notification dated 17.11.2020 is set aside, as it grants promotion and benefits to the petitioner from the date of date of notification and not from the date of his eligibility;

c. The petitioner is granted promotion along with all financial and consequential benefits to the post of Deputy Secretary with effect from 24.6.2013, i.e., the date on which juniors to the petitioner were granted promotion;

d. The petitioner shall be entitled for all financial and consequential benefits to the post of Joint Secretary with effect from 27.7.2018, i.e., the date on which juniors to the petitioner were granted promotion;

e. The petitioner shall be entitled for the pay scale considering his scale of Joint Secretary since 27.7.2018 and based on the same additional increment on the date of his promotion as Additional Secretary;

f. Since petition has superannuated since September, 2022, all benefits of revision in pay shall be taken into consideration for computation of retiral benefits including revision of pension and the arrears towards difference in retiral benefit;

2026:JHHC:2843 g. The State is directed to grant and release all benefits due to the petitioner, in terms of the above direction within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to 6 % simple interest from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment.

24. As a result, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Pending I.As., if any, are closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated: 03 /02/2026 Amardeep/ NAFR/A.F.R

Uploaded 05.02.2026