Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Uma Kant Sahay And Ors on 19 June, 2017
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: D.N. Patel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 480 of 2016
With
I.A. No. 2673 of 2017
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Rural Development
(Panchayati Raj), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi ... Appellant
Versus
Uma Kant Sahay ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI
For the Appellant : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Sr. S.C.III
Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate
Ms. Srija Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate
08/ Dated: 19
th
June, 2017
Oral Order
Per D.N. Patel, A.C.J.:
L.P.A. No. 480 of 2016
1. This appeal is Admitted.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent waives notice of admission.
3. Registry is directed to enlist this appeal under the heading "For Hearing"
in the 2nd week of March 2018.
I.A. No. 2673 of 2017
1. Looking to the fact that the post on which this respondent (original
petitioner) was appointed was Extension Officer under District Rural
Development Authority (DRDA). Initially 317 posts of Extension Officers were
created and upon bifurcation of the State, 71 posts came in the State of
Jharkhand because employees were serving within the territory of the State of
Jharkhand. During the regime of erstwhile State of Bihar, their services were
absorbed from the date of their appointments, whereas, in the State of
Jharkhand, they have been absorbed from the date of the notification i.e.
17.02.2011. This has given birth to writ petition which has been preferred by the respondent (original petitioner).
2
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is a prima facie case in favour of the appellant because the State of Jharkhand is a sovereign body which may or may not follow the said policy decision. Merely because the State of Bihar has given more benefits that does not mean that the State of Jharkhand should also give similar benefits. The respondent (original petitioner) is aggrieved by the policy decision taken by the State of Jharkhand. This Court will be slow in deciding such type of policy decision. Hence, there is a prima facie case in favour of the appellant, balance of convenience is also in favour of the appellant and if the stay, as prayed for, is not granted, it will cause irreparable loss to the appellant. Once the amount is paid to the employee, the same cannot be recovered from them. We, therefore, stay the operation, implementation and execution of the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6229 of 2015, dated 31 st August, 2016, during pendency and final hearing of this Letters Patent Appeal.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2673 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.
(D.N. Patel, A.C.J.) (B.B. Mangalmurti, J.) Ajay/