IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.571 of 2009
*****
1. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF PRISONS, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, BIRSA MUNDA CENTRAL JAIL, HOTWAR,
RANCHI.
(Not made party in connected writ petition) …. …. Appellants
Versus
1. THEODORE SORANG, SON OF LATE KARLUS SORANG, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE-LOYADIH, P.S.-NAMKUM, DISTRICT-RANCHI.
…. …. Petitioner-Respondent
2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME. GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,
PATNA.
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PRISONS, BIHAR, PATNA.
4. ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PRISONS, BIHAR.
5. SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, MADHUBANI.
…. …. Respondents-Respondents
———–
6. 25.6.2010. Heard the parties in respect of limitation
contained in I.A. No. 2827 of 2009. For the reasons
mentioned therein the delay of one year and 100 days in
preferring the appeal is condoned.
Interlocutory application stands allowed.
Admittedly, the appellants, which are State of
Jharkhand and its official were not a party to the writ
proceedings and this appeal has been permitted to be
maintained on account of an application filed by the
appellants seeking leave to prefer this appeal.
-2-
It is not in dispute that while the writ petition
bearing C.W.J.C. No. 13405 of 2001 filed by the respondent
no.1 was pending before this Court, the services of the writ
petitioner were allocated to the State of Jharkhand some
time in the year 2005 but that fact could not be brought to
the notice of the writ Court and the lawful employer of the
writ petitioner, the State of Jharkhand, was not added as a
party when the writ petition was finally heard and decided
by the order under appeal dated 13.12.2007.
After hearing the parties, we are of the
considered view that being the lawful employer of the writ
petitioner at the relevant time, the appellant, State of
Jharkhand and its concerned officials should have been
added as a party-respondent before deciding the writ
petition on merits.
In view of the aforesaid facts, without going into
the merits of the claims of the rival parties, the order under
appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the
learned writ Court for permitting impleadment of the
appellants as party-respondent in the writ petition and to
re-hear and decide the writ petition after giving opportunity
-3-
of filing counter affidavit to the appellants.
Since the writ petition was filed long back in the
year 2001 seeking quashing of order of punishment passed
in 1998, we request the writ Court to hear the matter
expeditiously, preferably within a month from the date of
communication of a copy of this order.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J)
Pawan/-