Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Prakash Milind vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 20 March, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.3431 of 2025
------
Ravi Prakash Milind. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Prakash Milind, Petitioner present in person.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC Mines-III Mr. Kumar Pawan, AC to SC Mines-III
------
08/ 20.03.2026 Heard.
2. The petitioner is present in person.
3. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for payment of his salary from April, 2025 onwards.
4. The petitioner is a Teacher in Primary School, Rapachakumari Boram, East Singhbhum, Jharkhand, under the Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand. The dispute is in respect of his attendance.
5. The petitioner present in person contends that the electronic device which was provided for marking the attendance, was not functioning properly for one reason or the other including network problem and the Authorities have not arranged for proper connectivity, thus he was marking his attendance manually. He argues that the respondents are not paying him salary since his Biometric Attendance was not recorded. It is his contention that non- recording of the Biometric Attendance cannot lead to any presumption that he has not attended his workplace. 1
6. Learned counsel representing the respondent - State, submits that the petitioner remained absent, which is apparent from the fact that there is no record of marking of Biometric Attendance by the petitioner. He submits that there is a Notification of the Education Department that salary will be paid only when the Biometric Attendance is marked. He further submits that for whatever period the petitioner has worked, his salary has been paid. He also submits that the others were already marking their attendance through Biometric mode.
7. Considering the rival submission, I am of the view that if there is error in any device or in connectivity for which the Biometric Attendance could not be marked, it cannot be presumed that the person has not attended the workplace. However, learned counsel representing the State submits that the others were already marking their attendance through Biometric mode, thus what the petitioner has stated, is not correct.
8. All these are disputed questions of facts, which need to be ascertained first. Thus, I direct the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, to inquire into the matter personally and submit a report to this Court. He will submit the report mandatorily incorporating the following points :-
i. The period i.e. the dates when the petitioner's Biometric Attendance was not marked. ii. Whether during that period, the Biometric Attendance of the other Teachers of the same School had been marked or not?
iii. Whether the petitioner had marked his attendance physically in any Register or not?2
iv. Whether the petitioner had attended the School and taken classes during the period in which his Biometric Attendance was not marked, during the entire period of the School hours? v. Whether the petitioner remained present in the School for the entire period during the timing of the School?
9. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, will send the report to this Court, within three weeks from today.
10. List this case on 17.04.2026.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) 20th March, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 3