Shyam Deo Singh vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 417 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shyam Deo Singh vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 27 January, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                                 2026:JHHC:2190

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      W.P.(S) No. 1505 of 2020
                                    .........

Shyam Deo Singh, aged about- 72 Years Son of Late B.Ν. Singh, Resident of Adonis Villa, Opposite Shanti Nagar Gate, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Petitioner (s) Versus

1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education Project Building, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi

2. Director, Department of Higher and Technical Education Project Building, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi

3. Ranchi University through its Vice Chancellor having its office at Ranchi University Campus P.O. GPO P.S. Kotwali Dist Ranchi

4. Registrar, Ranchi University, having its office at Ranchi University Campus P.O. GPO P.S. Kotwali Dist Ranchi

5. Principal, Mandar College, Ranchi.

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

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

For the Petitioner(s): M/s. Shresth Gautam, Rahul Anand, Himanshu Harsh, Padmanav Shahde, Prashant Kumar Jha, Advocates For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Suman Marandi, A.C. to S.C.-IV .........

C.A.V. ON 13/01/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:27/01/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the

Petitioner praying therein for following reliefs: -

i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the part of the notification dated 20.06.2009 issued under the order of the Respondent No. 3 so far as it relates to giving an imaginary date of absorption as the Respondent University have absorbed the

2026:JHHC:2190

service of the Petitioner from the date of notification that is 20.06.2009 and not from 29.11.1986 (date on which all the similarly situated person have been absorbed) in contravention of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6098/97 accepting the recommendation made by the S.C Agrawal Commission in totality and also in lieu of the fact that the name of the Petitioner appeared in the list of non-teaching staff working against sanction post out of which all other have absorbed w.e.f. 29.11.1986;

ii. To hold and declared that in view of the memo number 717 dated 01.12.2008 the service of the Petitioner ought to have regularized w.e.f. 30.04.1986 i.e. date of sanction post or the date on which similarly situated employees have been absorbed w.e.f. 29.11.1986 iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification dated 09.06.2018 issued under the signature of Respondent No. 3 wherein the approval of pay fixation for 6th Pay Commission was sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner with effect from 20.06.2009 instead of the effective date of 6th Pay Commission, adopted by the Respondent State from 01.01.2006 iv. For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the finding forming part of the service record of the Petitioner, reproduced in the reply letter dated 09.08.2017 bearing number RTI/333/17; to the RTI application so filed by the Petitioner before Public Information Officer, Ranchi University dated 13.05.2017 which was received by the Petitioner whereby and whereunder without providing any opportunity of hearing the nine years of service of the Petitioner has been treated to be break in service, that too post retirement of the Petitioner under Rule 28 of the CCS Pension Rules, even when the Rule itself provides that in case there is no remarks in regard to break in service the same shall be considered to be continuous service and in the present case the Petitioner has worked without any break-in service v. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) or a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction upon the Respondent to fix the pension of the Petitioner according to pay fixation under 5th Pay Revision which has been adopted by the Respondent State w.e.f. 01.01.1996

2026:JHHC:2190

vi. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) or a writ directing the respondents to pay all consequential benefits re-fixing the date of grant of actual financial benefits under 5th pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and that of 6th pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and also directing upon the Respondent to re-fix the Pension of the Petitioner.

vii. For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification contained in Memo no. Estt/EC/49-54/13 dated 30.01.2013 whereby and whereunder the Notification contained in Memo No. RU/VC/R/503/09 dated 20.06.2009 was partially amended and the services of the Petitioner was absorbed against the sanctioned post of typist which fell vacant due the retirement of one Sri Mahendra Mishra, typist, Mandar College, Mandar, w.e.f. 30.09.2009 viii. Such other relief(s) as the Petitioner be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

ix. to pay all consequential benefits, fixing the date of grant of actual financial benefits under fifth pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The Petitioner was appointed as Lower Division

Assistant/Typist by the Governing Body of Mander College

vide letter No. 10/III-84 dated 10.11.1984, with his joining

duly accepted by the Principal.

4. A conscious decision was taken by the unified State of

Bihar to the effect that all the affiliated colleges where to be

taken over and made constituent.

5. In light of the fact, various fact-finding committees

were formed in order to assess the sanctioned posts as well

as the employees working against the sanctioned post. This

particular fact resulted into multiple rounds of litigation

2026:JHHC:2190

which finally went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

wherein a one-man commission, namely Justice S.C.

Agarwal Commission (Retd.) was appointed for the fact

finding.

6. In the present case in the report of the One-Man

commission of Justice S.C. Agrawal, finding of a fact was

recorded to the effect that the Petitioner was working

against a sanctioned post. It was found that there was a

total of nine sanctioned post and the Petitioner was working

on the sixth such post.

It is further essential to state that even in the affidavit

so filed by the Ranchi University before the said one-man

Commission of Justice S.C. Agarwal, it was stated that the

Petitioner is working.

The said report of the one-man Commission was

accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgement

reported in State of Bihar and Others vs. Bihar Rajya

M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh and Others, (2005) 9 SCC 129, with

a further direction that the university should implement the

commission's report.

7. In light of the said fact, notifications were issued

absorbing services of various employees who were similarly

situated and whose names were also reflected in the

commission's report, but somehow the name of the present

2026:JHHC:2190

petitioner was absent from the said orders of regularization

of services.

8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the inaction on

the part of the authorities, the Petitioner preferred the writ

application before this High Court, which was numbered as

W.P.(S) no. 4974 of 2007.

9. The said application was taken up for hearing on

25.05.2009 where the following order was passed:

"there is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioners name figures in the report/list given by the learned Agarwal commission, which has been approved by the Hon'ble apex court.

Thus, it will be in fitness of things to take a decision and put it on affidavit."

10. In light of the said observation, realizing their mistake,

the university issued a notification of absorption of services

of the Petitioner wide notification number 503-09 dated

20.06.2009.

11. Finally, the writ application was disposed vide order

dated 04.01.2012 (Annexure-11), giving liberty to the

Petitioner to approach the Respondent authorities for

redressal of other grievances, if any.

12. The Petitioner superannuated on 31.10.2012 without

5th Pay Commission benefits; his pension application

recording "no break in service" (Annexure-12) was accepted

by the University.

2026:JHHC:2190

13. It further reveals that during his service period, the

Petitioner was denied to mark his attendance owing to the

fact that the Petitioner's services were not absorbed

pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

the fact finding by the said Justice S.C. Agarwal

Commission for which on repeated occasions

representations were made to the Respondent authorities'

reference may be made to letters dated 23.12.2003,

21.05.2004, etc.

14. As because the pay fixation of the Petitioner was not

being done, an RTI application was filed before the state

authorities in order to query about the same, which was

replied by way of a letter contained in letter number - 740

dated 06.06.2012 stating therein that the pay fixation of the

Petitioner could not be done owing to non-recommendation

of the same by the university concerned.

15. Further, in reply to another application under RTI, it

was informed that in exercise of powers of Rule 27 of the

CCS Pension Rules that the period for which the Petitioner

was not allowed to mark attendance has been treated as

break in service and the total year of service of the

Petitioner was only 15 years and 5 months.

Further, an order was also passed vide notification

dated 30.01.2013 to the effect that the services of the

2026:JHHC:2190

Petitioner was being regularized with effect from 30.09.2009

only.

16. Similar fact was also noticed in the pay fixation order

for the Sixth Pay revision, so granted to the Petitioner.

17. It has been contended by Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner

that the break in service is due to the fault of the employer

as the Petitioner though working in the college, his

attendance was marked as absent and due to which the

Petitioner has been denied the benefits.

18. The Petitioner was made aware of the break in service

when the Petitioner sought information under RTI, then he

came to know about the break in service. He was neither

given any show cause; nor he was made aware of such

break in service. The order having been passed without

providing an opportunity of hearing was bad in law.

Ld. Counsel referred a judgment and submits that The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgement in the case of Shiv

Shanker and Another vs. Union of India and Ors.

[(1985) 2 SCC 30], that an order of forfeiture of past service

cannot be made without observing the principles of natural

justice.

19. Further, Rule 27 of the CCS rules is not applicable in

the case as it pertains to interruption of services to be

ordered. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no order of

2026:JHHC:2190

interruption of service whereby the past services have been

waived off. Reference may be made to the judgement of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court DTC vs. Balwan Singh, (2019) 18

SCC 126, at para 20, wherein it was clarified that Rule 27

is only concerning interruption of services, whereby the

past services are wiped off.

20. Ld. Counsel reiterated that there was no fault on the

part of the Petitioner in regards to his absence because it

was owing to the non-action on the part of the university

authorities in regards to non-issuance of order for

absorption of services, the Petitioner was not allowed to

work/mark attendance.'

21. Ld. Counsel further relied upon the judgment rendered

in the case of Gowramma C. vs. Manager (Personnel)

Hindustan Aeronautical Limited and Another's,

reported in [(2022) 11 SCC 794] wherein at para 13 it has

been stated as under:

"If the employee is not at all at fault and she was kept out of work by reasons of the decision taken by the employer tend to deny the fruits of her being vindicated at the end of the day would be unfair to the employee"

He further relied upon the judgment rendered in the

case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C.

Muddaiah, [(2007) 7 SCC 689] wherein at para 33 it has

been stated as under:

"........ The matter can be looked at from another angle.

2026:JHHC:2190

Also, it is true that while granting a relief in favour of the party, the court must consider the relevant provision of law and issue appropriate directions keeping in view such provisions. There may be, however, be cases where on the facts and in the circumstances, the court may issue necessary direction to the larger interest of justice, keeping in view the principle of Justice, equity and good conscience. Take a case where ex -facia injustice has been meted out to an employee, in spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches the court of law. The court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him, and he has wrongfully, unfairly, with an oblique motive deprived of those benefits, the court in the circumstances direct the authority and all benefits which he would have obtained had not been illegally deprived of them. It is open to the authorities in such case to us that as he has not worked, he would not be granted. The benefit upholding of such would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than doing Justice to the person wrong."

Ld. Counsel further brought on record that similarly

situated employees have been absorbed from the date of

sanction of post whereas the case of the Petitioner was

ignored without any rhyme or reason.

22. He further contended that there is no reason for non-

grant of 5th Pay Revision benefits. The Petitioner has been

provided with a pay fixation in accordance with the Sixth

Pay commission but has been denied Fifth Pay Commission

pay fixation and the benefits arising thereof due to the fault

of the Respondent as he has been denied to work.

It is submitted that if the date of absorption of the

Petitioner is taken as that of recommendation made by

2026:JHHC:2190

Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission, then he can't be denied

the fruits of 5th Pay fixation.

23. It has been submitted by the Respondent that the

order impugned has been rightly passed as admittedly the

Petitioner has only worked for 15 years and 5 months and

as such no salary for the period where the Petitioner had

not work can be paid.

Further, the submission has been made that the

benefit of Fifth Pay Revision cannot be granted to the

Petitioner as the Petitioner had not work when the Fifth Pay

revision was being made applicable. As such no relief can

be granted to the Petitioner.

24. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and after

perusing the documents available on record it is clear that

the name of the Petitioner finds place in the Justice S.C.

Agarwal Commission Report. The Respondents have failed

to absorb the Petitioner as per the recommendation of the

Commission due to error on their part but later on took a

U-turn and absorbed the Petitioner when the post was

vacant after the retirement of one of the employees on

whose place the Petitioner herein was absorbed.

25. All the similarly situated employees were absorbed,

whereas the case of the Petitioner was ignored by the

Respondent authorities without giving any reason. No

2026:JHHC:2190

reason has also been assigned for non-grant of order for

absorption/delayed order of absorption in the affidavit so

filed by the Respondent.

26. Finally, the Petitioner was forced to move a writ

application before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court,

wherein an observation was made that the Respondent are

required to take a formal decision which resulted in the

final order of absorption of services vide order dated

20.06.2009. Though this order was passed in light of the

recommendation made by the Justice S.C. Agarwal

Commission, but the same was amended suo moto without

providing any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner,

amending the effective date of absorption to 30.09.2009

that too on a post which fell vacant upon retirement of an

employee.

27. There was no occasion to absorb the services of the

Petitioner against the post, which fell vacant later on

because Justice Agarwal commission report had

categorically given a finding that the Petitioner is working

against the 9th sanctioned post.

It is further pertinent to mention here that even the

recommended post, as stated by the university before the

Justice S.C. Agarwal commission on which allegedly the

Petitioner was working also sanctioned by virtue of letter

2026:JHHC:2190

number 717; as such, even if it is assumed that the

Petitioner was working against the recommended post; the

same also stood sanctioned with retrospective effect by

virtue of a notification issued by the government

authorities.

28. Furthermore, when all the other similarly situated

employees, who were also recommended by the said

commissions report were relied by virtue of notification

dated 03.03.2005, there was no reasoning for not passing a

final order of absorption of services of the Petitioner.

29. As a result of the same, the order of shifting of date of

absorption contained in memo number 49-54/ 13 dated

30.01.2013 is required to be set aside.

30. Now, coming to the issue of break in service of the

Petitioner; it appears from the writ petition that the

Petitioner has not prayed for payment of the entire period

where he was not allowed to work. The only prayer has been

made that this break in services be set aside as the same

has been passed without providing an opportunity of

hearing and also in lieu of the fact that it was on the

omission of the Respondent authorities that the Petitioner

was not allowed to work.

31. The law with regards to no work, no pay has been

dealt with time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In

2026:JHHC:2190

the case of C. Muddaiah (supra) it has been held that

nobody can be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong

and the Hon'ble Court had ordered for payment of the entire

period where the employee was not allowed to work. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court had further stated and propounded

that the court may issue necessary direction in the larger

interest of justice, keeping in view the principle of justice,

equity, and good conscience.

32. The facts of the present case also require that the

entire period of salary be paid to the Petitioner, but no

prayer to the effect has been made.

33. A similar issue fell for consideration before the Patna

High Court in the case of Gopal Kumar Sharma versus

State of Bihar, 2012 SCC Online Pat 118, wherein after

referring to various judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court,

the Patna High Court had held that though the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in various judgements have held that in

case of illegal termination necessary corollary would be to

reinstate the person with back wages, but by flux of time,

that view has changed. And finally, it was ordered by the

that though payment of salary cannot be ordered, but

relieved to the effect that the period where the Petitioner

was not allowed to work cannot be treated as break in

service and the same is required to be taken note for the

2026:JHHC:2190

purpose of pension and other benefits, which is clearly

applicable in the facts of the present case.

As such the same relief in the form of allowing the

entire services to be counted without any break in service is

required to be ordered in the present case for the purposes

of grant of pension and all other consequential benefits.

34. Further, the reliance placed by the Respondents upon

Rule 27 of the CCS Pension Rules is also highly misplaced

as the same cannot be made applicable wherein the

authorities are passing an order of forfeiture of past

services. Reference may be made to the judgement of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DTC versus Balwan

Singh, reported in (2019) 18 SCC 126, at para 20;

"The endeavour to refer to Rules 27 and 28 of the Pension Rules is of no avail, as those are dealing with the effect of interruption in service which may result in forfeiture of past service."

35. This could also have been applied only in case where

due opportunity had been given to an employee, reference

may be made to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Shiv Shanker (Supra.)

36. As a result, the orders of break in service as

communicated by response to the RTI application dated

09.08.2017 (Annexure - 15) deserves to be set aside, and

2026:JHHC:2190

the Petitioner is required to be treated as on duty for the

entire period where he was not allowed to work.

37. In view of the limited prayer, and the judgment of the

Patna High Court, no order of payment of the entire salary

is to be passed.

It is further essential to pass a specific direction to the

effect that during the period wherein the Petitioner was not

allowed to work is to be counted for the entire purposes of

pension and all other consequential benefit.

38. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands

allowed. Pending I.A.s, if any also stands disposed of.

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

Uploaded 30.01.2026