Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.50 seconds)The State Of Bihar vs Devendra Sharma on 17 October, 2019
110. It is further submitted in the rejoinder that the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Devendra
Sharma case and Kirti Naryan case (dated 30.11.2018 and
17.10.2019) were passed in personam and do not bind the
petitioner, who was never a party to those proceedings. The
respondents' reliance on these judgments to unilaterally stop the
petitioner's pension is legally untenable, especially since the
petitioner's right to reinstatement was already finalized by this
Hon'ble Court in earlier litigation (CWJC No. 8393 of 2009).
This is further supported by the case of Sri Uday Shankar
Prasad (MJC No. 3948 of 2022), where the State was compelled
to pay full arrears of salary and benefits after its attempts to
justify termination were rejected by the court. The impugned
order dated 27.09.2023 was issued without any fresh inquiry,
notice, or opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the
principles of natural justice and rendering the action of the
respondent authorities totally illegal and void ab initio.
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Bihar vs Kirti Narayan Prasad on 30 November, 2018
127. In CWJC Nos. 17963 of 2023, 18408 of
2023 and 351 of 2024, the petitioners contends that their
services were regularized following multiple rounds of
litigation, including a Division Bench dismissal of the State's
appeal in different L.P.A., which purportedly attained finality
regarding their service legality prior to their superannuation.
Further, the contention raised by the respondents authority that
petitioners appointment was consistently classified as "illegal"
and "void ab initio" by a five-member committee constituted
under judicial direction, and that the matter has reached absolute
finality through the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments in State
of Bihar vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad and State of Bihar vs.
Devendra Sharma, which held that void appointments confer no
rights to terminal benefits. The core issue for determination is
whether the respondent authorities can retrospectively stop the
pension of an employee, who retired after decades of service
and successful prior litigation, by relying on subsequent in
personam Supreme Court rulings without fresh notice or inquiry
or any show cause notice before stopping pension and family
pension of these petitioners respectively, and the five-men
committee report was prepared behind the back of these
petitioners, therefore, it is not justified to apply the report in
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
126/134
case of these petitioners without giving any opportunity of being
heard.
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
99. The Learned Counsel further submits that a
show cause notice was later issued via Memo No. 1093 dated
27.05.2000 based on a committee report of which the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
81/134
was unaware, and despite the petitioner filing a detailed reply on
16.06.2000, his services were again terminated via Memo No.
1311 dated 21.06.2000 (Annexure P/2) on the erroneous ground
that no reply had been filed. Following a period of serious
illness due to a paralytic attack, the petitioner challenged this
termination in CWJC No. 4619 of 2006, wherein this Hon'ble
Court, by a common order and judgement dated 26.06.2006
passed in LPA No. 946 of 2003, and analogous cases directed
the authorities to reconsider the cases of the employees in light
of the principles of regularization settled in the Uma Devi case.
Despite these directions, the subsequent enquiry report held the
petitioner's appointment illegal on the ground that he was
promoted from a voluntary worker, neither any show cause
notice nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner. On the other hand, Pradip Kumar Karn who was also
absorbed to the post of clerk from Voluntary Worker by order
issued vide memo no. 2787 dated 27.09.1989 (Anexxure P/3),
has been held to be irregular was reinstated in service by order
issued vide memo no. 1117(4) dated 20.09.2007 prompting a
further challenge in CWJC No. 8110 of 2009. By an order dated
06.10.2009 passed in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous
cases, the impugned enquiry report was quashed with directions
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
82/134
to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits,
highlighting a clear case of discrimination as other similarly
situated employees like Ashok Kumar Verma (Annexure P/4)
and Binod Narayan had already been reinstated via Memo No.
1117(4) dated 20.09.2007.
Article 300A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Kirti Narayan Prasad on 12 July, 2011
110. It is further submitted in the rejoinder that the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Devendra
Sharma case and Kirti Naryan case (dated 30.11.2018 and
17.10.2019) were passed in personam and do not bind the
petitioner, who was never a party to those proceedings. The
respondents' reliance on these judgments to unilaterally stop the
petitioner's pension is legally untenable, especially since the
petitioner's right to reinstatement was already finalized by this
Hon'ble Court in earlier litigation (CWJC No. 8393 of 2009).
This is further supported by the case of Sri Uday Shankar
Prasad (MJC No. 3948 of 2022), where the State was compelled
to pay full arrears of salary and benefits after its attempts to
justify termination were rejected by the court. The impugned
order dated 27.09.2023 was issued without any fresh inquiry,
notice, or opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the
principles of natural justice and rendering the action of the
respondent authorities totally illegal and void ab initio.
Hem Chand Jha @ Hemchandra Jha vs State Of Bihar on 13 June, 2008
Although, the petitioner previously
sought relief citing C.W.J.C. No. 6078 of 2009 (Hemchandra
Jha vs. State of Bihar) and was temporarily reinstated, the
respondent argues that such reinstatement does not cure the
fundamental defect of a forged appointment.
Dhirendra Kumar Hiralal Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 22 March, 2018
70. The learned counsel for the respondent further
provides a detailed history of the litigation surrounding these
appointments, noting that several writ petitions were initially
filed against such terminations and were allowed by Single
Judge benches. However, the State of Bihar challenged these
orders through various Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs), including
the landmark LPA No. 946 of 2003 (Purendra Solankit vs. The
State of Bihar), which resulted in a directive on June 26, 2006,
to constitute a Five-men Committee.
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Madhu Kumari on 24 September, 2014
93. The litigation subsequently moved into the
stage of Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs), where the legal position
Patna High Court CWJC No.17271 of 2023 dt.18-04-2026
77/134
underwent further clarification. While LPA No. 1727 of 2010
(State vs. Harishchandra Prasad) was initially dismissed on
27.07.2011, other similar and analogous appeals, such as LPA
No. 566 of 2010 (State vs. Madhu Kumari) and LPA No. 200 of
2010 (State vs. Om Prakash), were heard and allowed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench on 24.09.2014. These subsequent
judgments effectively set aside the earlier orders of the Single
Judge and reaffirmed the State's authority to act against
appointments that were found to be illegal upon detailed
committee scrutiny.