Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Rajendra Prasad Sinha & Anr on 17 July, 2018

Author: D.N.Patel

Bench: Amitav K. Gupta, D.N.Patel

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           L.P.A. No. 349 of 2016
                                     with
                           I.A. No. 5023 of 2016
                                     With
                           I.A. No. 5024 of 2016

The State of Jharkhand & Ors.   ...             ...            Appellants
                           Versus
Rajendra Prasad Sinha & Anr.           ...    ...          Respondents
                             ------

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

-----

For the Appellants: M/s Atanu Banerjee, G.A. For the Respondents: M/s Shruti Shresth

-----

th 14/Dated 17 July, 2018 Per D.N. Patel, A.C.J.

1. Notice was issued and served upon the respondents, but, despite the service of Notice, Respondent No. 1 (Original petitioner) has chosen neither to remain present nor to engage any counsel.

2. Present interlocutory application has been preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 663 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

3. Having heard counsel for the appellants and looking to the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, especially in paragraph No.s 3 to 8, it appears that there are reasonable grounds for condonation of delay.

4. In view of these facts, we hereby, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5023 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of.

5. This appeal is Admitted.

6. The Registry is directed to get the paper books prepared with neatly typed copies of annexures as required under Rule No. 190 and 191 of High Court of Jharkhand Rules 2001.

7. This matter is adjourned to be listed in the second week of December, 2018.

8. This interlocutory application has been preferred for getting stay against operation, implementation and execution of the Order dated 12th September, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5327 of 2010.

9. Having heard counsel appearing for the appellants and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that Respondent No.1 was initially appointed as Extra Clerk on 4th April, 1965. Thereafter, he was appointed on the post of Temporary Clerk on regular basis on 21st May, 1981. Thereafter, benefit of first Assured Career Progression was given on 21st May, 1991. It further appears from the facts of the case that on 8th November, 1995, he was promoted to the post of Permanent Clerk. Thereafter, Original Petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 31st January, 2004. It was submitted by counsel for the State that the pay scale of Temporary and Permanent Clerk is different. It is further submitted that post of a Permanent Clerk is promotional. Thus, Respondent No.1 cannot get benefit of second Assured Career Progression because he has already reached the age of superannuation prior to 2005. Thus, there is a prima-facie case in favour of the appellants. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the appellants and it appears that irreparable loss will be caused to the appellants if stay is not granted.

It is pertinent to mention here that the Order passed in W.P.(S) 3579 of 2010 dated 23rd July, 2014, which is relied upon by the learned Single Judge, has been stayed.

10. We, therefore, stay the operation, implementation and execution of the Order dated 12th September, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5327 of 2010.

11. This Interlocutory Application is allowed and disposed of.

(D.N.Patel, A.C.J.) (Amitav K. Gupta, J.) s.m.