Alok Nath Mukherjee W.P.(S) No.

6064 of 2010

Service Law=Dismissal=Disciplinary Authority without differing from the finding of Inquiry

Officer’s report asked for fresh enquiry by appointing a new Inquiry Officer=Respondents in
counter-affidavit stated that educational qualification was class 8th pass and not class 7th pass,
which is against the Advertisement and that subsequently qualification was changed= even if
qualification has been changed subsequently; any change during the period of selection
process is also against the law as rule of the game cannot be changed when the selection
process is initiated=plea also that no prejudice was caused due to non- supply of 2nd enquiry
report=petitioners have suffered civil consequences as they were terminated from finding of
2nd enquiry report to which they were not aware about its finding as same was not handed
over to them=once the Inquiry Officer found the charges against petitioners not proved, it
will be open to the Disciplinary Authorities to issue show cause notice to delinquent
employee indicating the grounds on which the Disciplinary Authority decided to disagree
with the findings recorded in departmental proceeding=however, it was not open to
Respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry into the allegation contained in the charge memo that
too at the back of delinquent employee=first enquiry was not found bad in law, but as per
Respondents, the same was vague and perverse=as such, the correct procedure would have
been to issue show cause notice to petitioners indicating the grounds on which disciplinary
authority decided to disagree with the findings recorded in departmental proceeding and then
pass appropriate order but cannot appoint a fresh Inquiry Officer and take his opinion that too
without any notice to petitioners=impugned orders quashed and set aside=however, it would
be open to Respondents to pass a fresh order in the matter in accordance with law after
following principles of natural justice. (Paras 10 to 12, 14, 16 and 17)

(1971)2 SCC 102=Relied upon.

(2012)3 SCC 580=Distinguished.

Balram Prasad W.P.(S) No.5570 of 2013

Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000=Rules 43(b) and 139(c)=withholding of pension

permanently and permanent deduction from pension u/r 139(c)=petitioner retired from his
service way back in 2007 and order of punishment u/r 43(b) was issued for the cause of
action which accrued in May 1995 to July 1998, which is not permissible in view of Rule
43(b)(ii)=Inquiry Officer exonerated petitioner from the charges, but the Disciplinary
authority without issuing any specific show cause notice giving reasons to differ with the
view of Inquiry Officer, imposed punishment which is against the settled principle=
punishment of deduction of pension suffers from procedural irregularities=any departmental
proceeding commence with serving of charge-sheet and culminate in passing of the impugned
order, but no charge-sheet was brought on record by respondent and relied upon a general
enquiry report which cannot be said to be a charge-sheet=impugned order and Resolution
quashed and set aside. (Paras 8 and 9)

(2006)9 SCC 440=Relied upon.

UK Mechanical Engineering Pvt. Ltd W.P.(C) No. 5561 of 2019

Constitution of India=Article 226=Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets &

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002=prayer for issuance of direction upon the
respondents specially Chief Manager-cum-Authorized Officer of the Bank to refund the
consideration amount paid by petitioner for purchase of the property=in online e-auction of
said property, petitioner was declared successful bidder and deposited the entire bid amount
but the Bank failed to hand over physical possession of said property=plea that the possession
of the said property could not be handed over due to the order passed by District Magistrate,
denying approval for grant of possession of said property as it comes under the purview of
the CNT Act, 1908=respondent-Bank duty bound to refund the amount received in lieu of
auction sale of the property since possession of the said property could not be handed over to
petitioner=petitioner entitled for refund of amount deposited by it with the Bank, alongwith
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of the refund. (Paras
6 to 8, 10 and 11)

(2014)16 SCC 760=Relied upon.

Commando Industrial Security Force W.P.(C) No. 2851of 2020

Government Contract=Notice Inviting Tender=plea that during subsistence of the work order
of petitioner, respondent arbitrarily issued a fresh NIT for the same work and as such same is
liable to be quashed=purpose of starting new process during subsistence of the agreement
made with petitioner is only to maintain smooth functioning of services under various
categories=as per agreement between petitioner and respondent, the period of the work order
will expire just after six days=plea also that since there is no complaint against its work, the
agreement is liable to be renewed for further period of one year as provided in the agreement
=in view of the clear stipulation in tender notice as well as in work order, respondents were
not under legal obligation to renew the agreement of petitioner=there was no absolute or
indefeasible right of renewal in favour of petitioner=thus, it has no vested right to compel the
respondents to renew the work order as the renewal was the choice of respondents on finding
its work satisfactory=it is not a case where the work order of petitioner has been prematurely
terminated on the ground of any allegation/complaint made against petitioner, rather
respondents simply do not want to continue with it=plea also that petitioner had legitimate
expectation that the agreement would be renewed after expiry of the term=there was clear
stipulation in the work order as well as in tender notice that the agreement may be renewed
on the satisfaction of the respondents=plea that certain amount of petitioner in relation to the
work in question is lying due with respondents and petitioner will suffer wrongful loss if the
agreement is not renewed in its favour, same does not create a right in favour of petitioner to
claim renewal of the work order=however, petitioner can claim the due amount from the
respondents, if any, by taking recourse of law=writ petition dismissed. (Paras 6 to 10)

Pranesh Kumar Sinha W.P.(C) No. 4443of 2019

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013=Sections 26, 30 and 64=compensation=land acquired for
construction of a Road Over Bridge (ROB) over the railway crossing=plea that the
respondents have not paid the “Solatium” amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the
compensation amount to the petitioners according to Section 30 and petitioners are also
aggrieved with payment of lesser amount of compensation=petitioners disputing the amount
of compensation, should have made application before the Collector stating the ground of
objection for referring it to the “Authority”=however, petitioners failed to show that any such
application was filed by them before the Collector for referring the matter to the “Authority”=
it has also not been brought to notice of court as to whether after receiving compensation
amount, they had made any protest as to the insufficiency of the awarded amount=petitioners
to prefer a fresh application before District Land Acquisition Officer, u/s 64 raising their
grievances. (Paras 6 and 7)

Pradip Mishra W.P.(S) No.2740 of 2015

Service Law=Appointment=on vacant Class-IV posts, as per Letter No. 272 dated 5.5.2012
and as per the Select List/District panel dated 3.2.2009 published by the District Level
Selection Committee after revision/updating of earlier Merit List/District Panel retaining the
seniority of the selected left over selected candidates of earlier panel as per the Govt. Letter
dated 26.5.1987=plea of respondents that the panel has lapsed, claim of petitioners cannot be
considered=though as per Circular No. 16441 dated 3.12.1980 , the life of panel was only one
year, but by the Government letter No. 6098 dated 28.5.1986, a direction was issued that
district panel prepared for appointment on class-IV posts in pursuance to Circular No. 16441
will be used as waiting list and after having vacancies of class-IV post in District Collectorate
the appointment will be made from the empanelled list and the panel will remain effective for
one year and in the next year the panel will be revised and left over candidates of the earlier
panel will be empanelled in the revised panel without losing their seniority=claim of the
candidates included in the panel cannot be defeated because currency of the panel has expired
during the pendency of litigation when the candidate has staked his claim during currency of
the panel=plea also that the minimum qualification of Class IV employee shall be 10th pass
and pursuant to the relevant resolution no new panel has been prepared after the old panel has
expired=said resolution of the Finance Department came in 2011, which is not applicable in
case of petitioner for the panel dated 3.2.2009=impugned order quashed and set aside=
Respondent directed to look into the matter afresh and consider case of petitioners. (Paras 10
to 14)

(2000)3 SCC 699=Relied upon.

LPA 336/2013 =Distinguished.

CWJC 1951/2002; WP(S) 4487/2010; WP(S) 4369/2012=Referred to.

Bipin Kumar Tiwary W.P.(C) No.1611 of 2020

Administrative Law=Government largesse=the Government/its functionaries cannot deal

with any person or entity like private individuals=a democratic Government cannot lay down
any arbitrary and capricious standard as per the choice of the persons with whom alone it
wishes to deal with=any allotment of land or grant of other form of largesse by the State or its
agencies/instrumentalities treating the same as a private venture is liable to be considered as
arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism and/or nepotism violating the soul of the
equality clause embodied under Article 14 of the Constitution=the distribution of largesse
such as allotment of land, grant of quota, permit, licence, etc. by the State and its agencies/
instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner. (Para 15)

(2018)9 SCC 617; (2012)11 SCC 434=Relied upon.

Municipal and Panchayat Laws=Cancellation of allotment of a restaurant and multipurpose

building (marriage hall) made in favour of petitioners=maximum period of the lease was for
three years and now said terms already ended=petitioners continued in possession of leased
premises till the expiry of the maximum period of lease=after expiry of lease, the lessee
cannot claim an indefeasible right to continue with the possession of the property=petitioners
cannot insist for renewal of their respective leases even after expiry of the maximum period
of three years=the proper course for the authority is to hold open bid for grant of fresh
lease=even if it is assumed that the Board of Zila Parishand had resolved for renewal of the
lease, the same has to be treated as arbitrary and violative of the constitutional schemes=any
allotment of public property is required to be made through public auction giving opportunity
to the public at large to participate in the same=plea that Chief Executive Officer before
issuing the impugned memos did not take approval of the Chairman of the Zila Parishad and,
thus those are without jurisdiction=the purpose of letting out the concerned buildings/
properties under the ownership of the Zila Parishad was to raise financial resources=Chief
Executive Officer found that petitioners were paying less rent than prevalent market rent of
the leased buildings and the Zila Parishad was found incurring considerable loss=it was
provided in the auction notice itself that term of lease would be effective for a maximum
period of three years and the same was on temporary basis, there is no question of petitioners
having legitimate expectation for further extension of the lease period=thus, Chief Executive
Officer taken correct approach in making fresh auction advertisement with regard to the
premises in question=plea also that petitioners have made huge investment in renovating the
leased premises not worth consideration as they themselves were fully aware that the
maximum period of lease agreements executed by them was for three years only=writ
petitions dismissed. (Paras 12, 17 to 20, 23 and 24)

Aranav Prakash W.P.(C) No. 2126 of 2020

Interpretation of Statutes= Ejusdem Generis=admission=denial=plea that prayer made in writ

petitions not coming under the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal and the
concept of Rule Ejusdem Generis would be applicable to emphasize the real purport and
meaning of general words “and allied matters related thereto” and when general words
pertaining to a distinct class, category or genus are followed by particular and specific words
of the same nature, the general words are construed as limited to things of the same kind as
those specified=the Rule Ejusdem Generis is not applicable in facts and circumstances of
present case=if any question arises as to whether the Tribunal having been constituted for
specific purpose has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide such matter, the object and
reasons for constitution of such Tribunal is required to be looked into=if a restricted
construction of any word used in the statute will defeat the purpose of the very constitution of
the Tribunal, such construction should be avoided. (Paras 6 and 9)

(1960)3 SCR 887: AIR 1960 SC 1080; (1999)4 SCC 69; (2003)4 SCC 166=Referred to.

Constitution of India=Article 226=Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005=Section 8=

alternative remedy/maintainability of writ petition=admission=denial=private unaided
minority educational institution=petitioners neither allowed to take admission in the next
higher classes nor permitted to attend their online classes=plea that petitioners have speedy,
statutory and efficacious remedy to prefer suitable application before Jharkhand Education
Tribunal=the object of the Act, 2005 r/w Section 8(d) wherein it has been stipulated that other
allied matters related thereto, would also be within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the words
“allied matters related thereto” cover the dispute in question=no such exceptional
circumstance shown to entertain writ petitions inspite of an alternative/efficacious remedy
being available to petitioners before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal=claim and counter
claim made on behalf of parties involve disputed question of facts which require laying of
respective evidences and factual adjudication, the same can be effectively be heard and
disposed of by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal=writ petitions dismissed. (Paras 10, 23
and 24)
Constitution of India=Article 226=the power of the High Court under Article 226 is very
wide, yet it must exercise a self-imposed restraint and not to entertain the writ petition if an
alternative/efficacious remedy is available to the aggrieved person=a writ petition should not
be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation and availability of efficacious/alternative
forum for redressal of grievances. (Paras 15 and 23)

(1995)1 SCC 21; (2002)5 SCC 521; (2015)6 SCC 773; 2020 SCC Online SC 440=Relied
upon.
WP(C) 30712/2015 (L)(Ker.); WP 5378/2013(Bom.)=Distinguished.
(2002)8 SCC 481; WP(PIL) 2744/2003; (2011)15 SCC 383; (2012)12 SCC 331=Referred
to.
Birendra Pratap Singh W.P.(S) No. 3835 of 2015

Service Law=Recovery=cancellation of Time bound promotion on the ground that the

petitioner did not pass departmental accounts examination=petitioner received the
ACP/MACP benefits as per Government resolution dated 21.5.2014=if an employee is not
getting any benefit due to his disqualification, he would be entitled to the same only when the
disqualification will be removed=petitioner became entitled for ACP after passing of
departmental examination, as such, he will be entitled for rest benefits as per the government
resolution=further, if there is no fraud or misrepresentation on the part the employee,
respondents cannot recover the amount, that too after lapse of a long time=there is no fraud
committed by petitioner, rather the benefit was wrongly fixed due to fault of respondents=
plea of respondent with regards to delay and laches in challenging the order of recovery=the
State itself has rectified its own wrong after a gap of more than ten years=order of recovery
quashed and set aside=respondent directed to refund the amount so deducted. (Paras 5 and
6)
(2006)11 SCC 492; 2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 196=Relied upon.
(2013)12 SCC 580=Referred to.
Dipak Chourasia vs. SOJ (Cr. Rev. No. 1082 of 2014)

Indian Penal Code, 1860=Section 498-A=conviction for cruelty and harassment for demand
of dowry=all other co-accused persons except petitioner (husband) acquitted of such
charges=case instituted eighteen years back=petitioner faced rigors of criminal case for a
long time=case is petitioner’s first offence=sentence modified by reducing the punishment
from two years R.I. to one year R.I. with additional fine to be paid to the wife. (Para 12)

Madan Prasad vs. SOJ (Cr. Rev. No. 848 of 2014)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973=Section 125=maintenance to step mother=petitioner

appointed on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father=step mother receiving a
very meager amount as pension and not ready to live with petitioner=she is above 60 years of
age and undergoing treatment and is in need of money for treatment=family court rightly
awarded maintenance from petitioner’s salary as service obtained on compassionate
ground=direction to pay regular maintenance and in instalments for the arrears. (Paras 13 to
15)

Jai Prakash Roy vs. SOJ [WP(S) No. 6418 of 2011]

Service Law=Appointment=against land acquisition for Konar Nahar Dam Project=in
previous writ petition direction was given to decide the claim but no decision
taken=direction to file representation before the authority along with previous order which
shall be decided by passing reasoned and speaking order. (Para 7)

WP(S) 4842/2001=Referred to.

Kumud Patar Munda vs. SOJ [WP(S) No. 5599 of 2011]

Service Law=Regularization=on ground of Resolution dated 18.7.2009 providing for

regularization of service of employees who have put in regular service for more than 10 years
against vacant and sanctioned posts=similar issue also decided in WP No. 1513 of 2016,
respondents directed to examine the Statue of petitioner and pan reasoned speaking order
assigning contract and valid reasons for consideration or non consideration. (Para 6)

WP 1513/2016=Followed.

Bipin Kumar Singh vs. SOJ [WP(S) No. 7618 of 2013]

Service Law=Dismissal=on ground of not replying to second show cause on charges of

misappropriation of amount=admittedly second show cause reply filed much before passing
of impugned order= appellate order affirming dismissal order=appellate order is non-
speaking order without whispering about either reply of second show cause or contentions
raised by petitioner=reply to second show cause ought to have been considered by
disciplinary authority before passing of impugned order=even appellate order ought to have
reflected as to what was the material placed and on what ground the order of disciplinary
authority being affirmed=impugned orders quashed remitting the matter back to disciplinary
authority to proceed afresh after the stage of enquiry giving opportunity to petitioner to reply.
(Paras 7 and 8)

(2006)4 SCC 153; (2009)4 SCC 240; (2002)10 SCC 473=Relied upon.

Durga Charan Das vs. Employers in relation [WP(L) No. 1703 of 2012]

Labour and Industrial Laws=Compassionate appointment=rejection on ground of son of ex-

serviceman was minor and widow was over age at the time of disablement of ex-
serviceman=clause 9.4.0 and 9.5.0 of NCWA=NCWA Scheme came into effect from
1.1.2000 whereas ex-serviceman declared medically unfit in the year 1994=Tribunal rightly
held widow to be entitled to monthly monetary compensation=direction to pay monetary
compensation w.e.f. the date ex-serviceman was declared medically unfit=claim for
compassionate employment rightly rejected by the Tribunal. (Para 9)

(2018)11 SCC 201=Distinguished.

Radha Mohan Singh vs. Jharkhand Bilji Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [WP(S) No. 164 of 2019]
Service Law=Retirement benefits=pre-mature retirement=an employee can be superannuated
on completion of 60 years of age=he can be superannuated only on attaining age of
superannuation and cannot be retired on ground of completion of 42 years of service,
particularly in absence of any specific stipulation in service rules that as and when employee
complete 40/42 years of service, he has to superannuate=in absence of any such stipulation,
Service rules comes into play which stipulates that an employee has to superannuate as per
date of birth mentioned in service excerpts as well as matriculation certificate=order
prematurely retiring the petitioner quashed entitling him for benefits of salary of remaining
service period along with all consequential benefits. (Para 5)

2001(1) PLJR 627=Referred to.

M/s Ador Welding Ltd. vs. SOJ [WP(L) No. 6559 of 2018]

Labour and Industrial Laws=Termination dues=payment of Gratuity=Payment of Gratuity

Act, 1972=Section 4=matter already pending before Deputy Labour Commissioner’s
court=matter remitted back to pass orders in accordance with law. (Para 8)

Anand Prakash Narayan vs. SOJ [WP(S) No. 5816 of 2019]

Service Law=Retirement dues=non-payment within tune=earlier High Court passed general

order to pay admitted dues within time failing which would constitute contempt of court=still
no proper steps taken for payment within time despite notification already issued by Chief
Secretary=direction to release entire admissible dues within one month with cost of Rs. 25,
000/- payable to petitioner from the pocket of responsible authority. (Para 7)

WP(S) 2676/2016=Referred to.

Indradeep vs. SOJ [WP(S) No. 4378 of 2017]

Service Law=Punishment=Jharkhand Service Code 2001=Rule 265=punishment of censure,

stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and treatment of suspension period as
“No work No pay” on account of unauthorized absence=High Court under Article 226 has
limited scope of interference in case of concurrent finding of two authorities=scope of
judicial review is very limited=unless punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate,
court cannot interfere with the same=prayer to quash punishment order rejected. (Para 8)
(2003)3 SCC 309=Relied upon.