Jharkhand High Court
Sweta Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand on 13 March, 2026
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:9483
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4511 of 2015
.........
1. Sweta Kumar, wife of Late Khagendra Kumar, r/o Pundag, P.O. & P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi.
2. Rajendra Nath Tripathy, Son of Late N.N.Tripathy, R/o-Latma Road, Singh Mode, P.S. Jagarnathpur, P.O. Hatia, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
..... Petitioner(s) Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, At-Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Accountant General (A&E), at Shyamli, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN .......
For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I .........
C.A.V. ON 13/02/2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 13/03/2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:
(i) For direction upon respondents to pay the consequential benefits by granting proper pay scale and pay fixation in the category of Senior Selection Grade w.e.f.01.12.1995, as the same has been granted by notification no. 146 dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure-2) but, till date the consequential monetary benefits has not been paid to the petitioners without any rhyme and reasons, although, same relief has been granted to the juniors like Mr. Gupteshwar Ram and Aabha Kusum Tirkey, which are juniors to the petitioners.1
2026:JHHC:9483
(ii) For further, direction upon the respondents, to grant the pay scale of 3700-5000 w.e.f. from 01.12.1995, replacement pay scale of Rs 12000-15600 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and consequential pay scale implemented time to time and to pay the arrears of salary accordingly.
3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit bringing on record Letter no. 259 dated 27.07.2016; whereby and whereunder notification no. 146 dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure-2) was modified to the extent that now the benefit of promotion has been made admissible from the date of taking over charge of promotional post.
4. The petitioners by filing I.A. No. 8152 of 2016 have assailed the order contained in letter no. 259 dated 27.07.2016 on the ground that the same has been issued without affording any opportunity of hearing. Further, it has also been explained that the petitioners have discharged the duties on promoted posts i.e. Senior Selection Grade since July 1995.
After getting reply from the respondents, Interlocutory Application was allowed vide order dated
30.01.2026 and the pleading made therein was treated to be part of the main writ petition.
5. During pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner no. 1 died on 22.08.2019 accordingly, IA No. 3065 of 2021 was filed for substitution of his wife namely Sweta Kumar. I.A. was allowed vide order dated 05.04.2023 allowing the 2 2026:JHHC:9483 substitution.
Brief Facts.
6. The case of the original petitioner/petitioner is that both of them were given promotion in Junior Selection Grade in year 1992 and thereafter in Senior Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.12.1995 vide notification no. 146 dated 13.08.2009. Subsequently, when the monetary benefits stipulated in notification dated 13.08.2009 was not given to the petitioners they represented before respondent authorities. The respondents did not take any action on representation of petitioners; therefore, they have knocked the door of this Court by filing instant writ petition. Submission of the Petitioners
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the original petitioner/ petitioner had joined in the year 1985 in the services of State in the Cadre of the then Bihar Education Service Class - II on the recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission. After reorganization of State, their services came in State of Jharkhand and they served in different capacity in State of Jharkhand. As such, the Petitioners are entitled for pay scale and pay fixation in the category of Senior Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.12.1995 and also for the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 w.e.f. from 01.12.1995, replacement pay scale of Rs. 12000-15600 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and consequential pay scales implemented time to time.
3
2026:JHHC:9483 Stand of the Respondents
8. Learned Counsel for the respondents referring to the counter affidavit has stated that Department of Finance had issued letter bearing no. 2074 dated 04.04.1985 which provides that according to Rule-58 of Bihar Service Code, a government servant is entitled to get the salary and the other allowances attached to the post from the date on which she/he assumes the duties of the post.
9. The respondents have further referred Rule-74 of Finance Regulation Rules, which restricts practice of grant of any promotion with retrospective effect. It has been contended that in light of above, issuance of letter no. 259 dated 27.07.2016 is justified and, the earlier notification issued vide memo no. 146 dated 13.08.2009 had been modified to the extent that now benefit of promotion has been made admissible from the date of taking of charge.
10. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder and by referring the averments made in I.A. no. 8152 of 2016, have demonstrated that from year 1995 onwards they have worked on the posts earmarked for Senior Selection Grade. They have also referred to relevant provision of the Bihar Education Code; wherein Article 785 describes posts of Class I in Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade. The post of District Education Officer and other different posts have been mentioned therein 4 2026:JHHC:9483 as post of Senior Selection Grade on which original petitioner/ petitioner have discharged their duties.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. The issue with regard to applicability of Rule 58(a) of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules as raised by learned counsel for the Respondents has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 211 of 2019. The relevant portion is quoted herein below:
"14. The provisions of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code was the subject matter before the Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) as also in the judgment rendered in the case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar & Anr v. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) as such it is not now in dispute that judgment has already been decided by the Patna High Court with respect to applicability of the provisions of Rule-58 of the Service Code and for grant of benefit from the retrospective date.
15. Similar issue has also been considered by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 232 of 1998 with C.W.J.C. No. 269 of 1998 wherein taking reference to the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) as also in the judgment rendered in the case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar & Anr v. State of Bihar & Ors (supra), the benefits of promotion have been granted to the writ petitioners in the said case.
17........ This Court is of the considered view that the issue has already been decided by Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) as also in the judgment rendered in the case of Ranjit Sahay Jamuar & Anr v. State of Bihar & Ors (supra), refused to accept the plea of the appellant-State of Jharkhand about applicability of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code as well as Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules and as such according to our considered view the learned Single Judge in that regard cannot be said to have committed any error, in not accepting the ground/reason for denying the claim of the writ petitioner / respondent by applying the provision of Rule 58 of the Service Code and Rule 74 of the Financial Rules.
21. It cannot be disputed that if the employee has not discharged his duties, the principle of 'no work no pay' will be applicable but the said principle is not universally applicable, if it is found that the fault not lies on the part of the employee. The same issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors v. Union of India reported in (1989) 2 SCC 541.
......... In normal circumstances, when the retrospective promotions are affected all benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be extended to an officer who has been denied promotion earlier. Thus, it is evident from the judgments, as referred above, that the principle which cannot be denied therefrom is that if a promotion is denied to an employee because of the mistake of the State and due to no fault of such employee, then the authorities are bound to pay the arrears of salary etc. upon giving him the benefits of retrospective 5 2026:JHHC:9483 promotion after realizing for mistake. This principle would be extended even to those case where due to sheer negligence, carelessness or on account of mala fides an employee has been denied with the benefit of promotion at a proper time when it becomes due and gives him afterwards though retrospectively.
Reliance in this regard be made in the case of State of Kerela & Ors v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pilla reported in JT 2007 6 SC 83 and also the judgment rendered in the case of Mohd. Ahmed vs. Nizam Sugar Factory & Ors reported in (2004) 11 SCC 210. But, on the other hand, where there is genuine dispute and the promotion was delayed because of pendency of such a dispute and before the settlement of the dispute the promotion could not have been granted, the salary for the past period can be denied even when promotion is given retrospectively after the resolution of the dispute.
24. Further question is regarding applicability of provisions of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules. So far as rider about applicability of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code is concerned, said issue has already been decided in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors (supra) as such putting the said rider is nothing but an arbitrary exercise for denying the legitimate claim of the writ petitioner-
respondent.
25. So far as applicability of Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules is concerned as would be evident from the content of the provisions of Rule 74 as referred above, it would be evident that the same pertains to the power of the competent authority in financial sanctioning in the case of monetary benefit with retrospective effect. But the question herein is about applicability of Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules, which is to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the case and since the Hon'ble Apex Court has come to a conclusive finding by laying down the law about the applicability of the principle of 'no work no pay' and that will not be applicable if fault not lies on the part of the employee, in such circumstances, making the provisions of Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules applicable is nothing but an arbitrary exercise as because if the wrong has been committed by the State authorities they cannot be allowed to take aid of their own wrong by denying claim."(emphasis supplied)
12. The case of original petitioner/ petitioner is on better footing as they claim to have discharged their duties on the promoted post of Senior Selection Grade.
13. In light of the abovementioned settled legal position of law, it appears that the impugned order contained in letter no. 259 dated 27.07.2016 has been passed without application of mind and as such the same is unwarranted and unjustified.
14. Accordingly, letter no. 259 dated 27.07.2016 issued by School Education and Literacy Department, is hereby, quashed and set aside.
15. In the instant case, the original petitioner/ petitioner in 6 2026:JHHC:9483 their rejoinder and also in IA no. 8152 of 2016 have given detail of their posting on the post of Senior Selection Grade. This court is conscious of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India wherein the veracity of documents i.e., notification regarding posting of the petitioners cannot be examined and adjudicated.
As such, the matter is remitted to the concerned respondent, to verify the claim of petitioners regarding their posting on the post of Senior Selection Grade and if the same is found genuine, consequential monetary benefits as contemplated in notification no. 146 dated 13.08.2009 shall be extended to the petitioner/legal heir of the original petitioner.
The entire exercise shall be completed expeditiously preferably within 10 weeks from the date of getting a copy of the order.
16. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.s if any also stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated: 13 /03/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 06.04.2026 7