[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                                2026:JHHC:2188

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    W.P.(S) No. 373 of 2017
                                .........

1. Manoj Kumar, Son of Late Siya Sharan Prasad,

2. Ashutosh Kumar, Son of Late Siya Sharan Prasad, Both resident of village-Naurojpur, P.O. Barbigha, P.S. Sare, District-Sheikhpura, State: Bihar.

..... Petitioner (s) Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2.Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S. Jaggarnathpur, District- Ranchi.

3. District Superintendent of Education, Khunti, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District-Khunti.

4. Area Education Officer, Torpa, P.O. & P.S. Torpa, District-Ranchi.

5. The Secretary, Managing Committee, GEL Middle School, Umbulbaha, P.O. Birbanki, P.S. Arki, District-

        Khunti.                           ..... Respondent(s)
                                .........


 CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
                                .......
        For the Petitioner(s)               : Mr. Rohit, Advocate
        For the Resp.-State                 : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II
        For the School                      : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv
                                            .........

C.A.V. ON 15/01/2026                        PRONOUNCED ON: 27/01/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Petitioners, who are sons of late Siyaram Prasad,

have approached this Court for payment of death-cum-

retiral dues of their father who had passed away on

01.06.2015.

It has been pleaded and argued that the father of the

petitioners was appointed as Science Teacher in G.E.L.

Middle School, Umbubaha, Arki, District Ranchi on

2026:JHHC:2188

5.4.1983. He was appointed on the sanctioned post,

inasmuch as, there were five sanctioned posts.

It has further been argued that the father of the

petitioners had earlier moved before this Court vide W.P.(S)

No. 2494/2004 for pay revision, which has been disposed of

vide order dated 10.5.2004 and for non-compliance of the

order dated 10.5.2004, a contempt application was also

filed. It has also been argued that in the contempt

application, a show cause was filed along with order dated

7.2.2006 passed by the District Superintendent of

Education, Ranchi; whereby services of the petitioners

stood terminated.

The said order of termination was challenged before

learned Jharkhand Educational Tribunal in Case No.

52/2006 and the learned Tribunal has allowed the same by

quashing the order dated 7.2.2006. It has also been

submitted that the order of the learned JET was assailed

before this Court by the Managing Committee and the same

has also been dismissed.

3. A Counter affidavit has been filed in this case on

behalf of the respondent District Superintendent of

Education stating that the services of the father of the

petitioners has not been approved due to submissions of

forged document in relation to his qualification of B.Ed.

2026:JHHC:2188

There was also a direction to lodge an F.I.R. against him.

4. This Court took serious view of the matter and in its

order dated 19.2.2024 had observed as under:-

"1. It appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that retiral dues of father of the petitioners has been withheld on the ground that FIR was lodged against him and his service has not been confirmed. However, this Court is not satisfied the stand by the State Government.

2. Under such circumstances, respondent no. 2, Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and respondent no. 3, District Superintendent of Education, Kunti are directed to remain physically present before this Court on the next date fixed and to explain as to why even after the death of the father of the petitioners, no steps have been taken for payment of retiral dues to the family members of the deceased- Siya Sharan Prasad.

3. Put up this case on 28.02.2024.

4. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State for the needful."

5. Further, on 28.2.2024, a submission had been made

on behalf of the State Counsel that a fact-finding committee

has been constituted into the subject matter of non-

payment of death-cum-retiral dues of the father of the

petitioners.

6. Thereafter, a supplementary counter affidavit has been

filed by the State, wherein it has been averred that the

Secretary, School Education, has constituted a 4-Member

Committee vide his Order No. 119 dated 24.2.2024, which

included the Director, Primary Education as Chairman and

the Deputy Director, the Additional Secretary and the

District Superintended of Education, Khunti.

7. It further transpires from records that the 4-Member

2026:JHHC:2188

Committee had submitted its report dated 4.3.2024 which

had been on the basis of the documents and records

produced by the D.S.E. in relation to the sanction of the

posts on which the father of the petitioners has been

appointed as well as the genuineness of the B.Ed. degree

produced by the father of the petitioners, which has been

found to be forged.

The termination of the father of the petitioners by the

Managing Committee of the School vide letter dated

17.8.2007 has also been taken into account by the

committee, which accordingly had opined that the

appointment of the father of the petitioners was illegal and

despite of having asked and given several opportunities, he

had not produced the requisite certificate.

The fact-finding committee has also opined that since

the father of the petitioners had already been terminated in

the year 2007 itself and the same has attained finality and

hence, pension etc. cannot be granted to the petitioners.

8. The correspondences made with the University in

relation to the genuineness of the degree of the father of the

petitioners had also been annexed with the counter affidavit

and as per the reply of the Controller of Examination of

Ranchi University dated 6.7.2012, the B.Ed. degree of the

father of the petitioners having Provisional Certificate No.

2026:JHHC:2188

78/4121 has been found to be fake. For brevity, the

relevant part of the contents of the letter is being extracted:

"Sub: Regarding verification of results.

Sir/Madam, With reference to your letter no. 2/2012 dated 25.06.2012, I am directed to inform you that the following document has been verified from our office record found forged and fake. The detail is given below.

      Sl.         Name            Mark Sheet/Provisional      Remarks
     No.                          Certificate No. / Original
                                          Deree No.
      1.      Siya Sharan                  78/4121              Fake
                 Prasad

9. A show cause dated 02.12.2024 has also been filed on

behalf of the Secretary, Managing Committee, wherein also

it has been admitted that the School has only four

sanctioned posts of teachers and there was no approval of

appointment of the father of the petitioners by the

competent authority and the school managing committee

had already terminated the services of the father of the

petitioners w.e.f. 16.10.2007. The order of termination of

the services of the father of the petitioners has not been

assailed or set aside by competent court of law and has

attained finality.

10. Pursuant to all these developments, this Court vide its

order dated 20.11.2025 had directed the petitioners to

produce the appointment letter and had provided an

opportunity to justify the appointment of the father of the

petitioners on the sanctioned post.

2026:JHHC:2188

The petitioners thereafter have filed a supplementary

affidavit, however, the letter of appointment of their father

has not been brought on record. The service book also did

not mention about the approval of appointment of father of

the petitioners or the sanction of the preposition statement

for salary to their father. The service book did neither

contain the time-to-time approval of the pay scale and

increment by the competent body.

11. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances

following issues are involved for consideration: -

(a) Whether the Appointment of the father was made on a sanctioned/non-sanctioned post ?

(b) Whether a terminated employee can be entitled to pension and other retirement benefits ?

(c) Whether any relief can be granted to the present petitioners when the Appointment of their father was on the basis of forged document ?

12. So far as the appointment of the father of the

petitioners is concerned, the records suggest that it is

against a non-sanctioned post, inasmuch as, 04 nos. of

post had only been sanctioned and the petitioners' father

was not under sanctioned strength. Hence, it is an illegal

appointment and once the appointment is illegal, no

statutory entitlement for payment of salary or consequential

benefits arise.

13. Furthermore, the degree of B.Ed. of the father of the

2026:JHHC:2188

petitioners on the basis of which appointment has been

claimed, has also been found to be forged. The father of the

petitioners during his lifetime only has been put to show

cause in this regard, however, he had chosen not to reply

and thereby has been terminated in the year 2007 itself.

There is nothing on record to suggest that the order of

termination has been assailed or set aside and hence, has

attained finality and thus a terminated employee has no

right to pension.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Bihar Vrs. Devendra Sharma, reported in (2020) 15 SCC

466 has also held that any appointment on the basis of a

forged certificate is void and any wrongfully employed

person has no legal right for any salary or pensionary dues.

The Hon'ble Apex Court at para-36 and 37 of the judgement

has observed in the following manner:-

36) We do not find any merit in the said argument. A Full Bench of the High Court in Rita Mishra & Ors. v. Director, Primary Education, Bihar & Ors.11 while dealing with appointment in the education department claiming salary despite the fact that letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal, declined such claim. It was held that the right to salary stricto sensu springs from a legal right to validly hold the post for which salary is claimed.

It is a right consequential to a valid appointment to such post. Therefore, where the very root is non-existent, there cannot subsist a branch thereof in the shape of a claim to salary. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Therefore, these rights, including the right to salary, spring from a valid and legal appointment to the post. Once it is found that the very appointment is illegal and is non est in the eye of law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise.

37) Such judgment of the Full Bench was approved by three Judge Bench of this Court in a Judgment reported R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors.12. This Court held as under:

"17. The point was again examined by a Full Bench of the Patna

2026:JHHC:2188

High Court in Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education, Bihar :

The question posed before the Full Bench was whether a public servant was entitled to payment of salary to him for the work done despite the fact that his letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal. The Full Bench held "13. It is manifest from the above that the rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service.

Therefore, these rights, including the right to salary, spring from a valid and legal appointment to the post. Once it is found that the very appointment is illegal and is non est in the eye of the law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise. In particular, if the very appointment is rested on forgery, no statutory right can flow from it."

18. We agree with the view taken by the Patna High Court in the aforesaid cases."

15. It is also settled proposition of law that fraud vitiates

the very root cause and any order or judgement obtained by

playing fraud is a nullity and nonest in the eyes of law.

Reliance in this regard may be placed on to the judgement

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.P.

Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, reported in (1994) 1

SCC 1, 1993, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed

that:-

"

1.....

It is the settled proposition of law that a judgement or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and nonest in the eye of the law. Such a judgement/decree - by the first court or by the highest court - has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings."

16. As a sequitur to the aforesaid; admittedly when the

appointment of the father of the petitioners was on the

basis of a forged B.Ed. Degree that too against the non-

sanctioned post and his services has also been terminated,

no relief in the form of pensionary dues can be extended to

2026:JHHC:2188

the petitioners.

17. In view of the aforesaid findings, all the issues have

been answered against the petitioners and as a result, this

application is dismissed. Pending I.A.s, if any also stands

disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:27/01/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R