IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5968 of 2008
Deinesh Narayan Singh & ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & ors. ... Opp.Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
---------
For the petitioners: Dr. S.N.Pathak, Advocate
For State of Jharkhand: J.C. to A.G.
For the State of Bihar: Mr. S.P.Roy, Advocate
———
th
06/ Dated: 13 August, 2009
1. The present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason
that the respondents have passed various orders at Annexure 1,
1/A, 1/B, 1/C, 1/D and 1/E to the memo of present petition,
whereby, the benefit given to the petitioners by way of Reducible
Pay Protection with effect from 1st January, 1996
uninterruptedly since years together, has been withdrawn for
no justifiable reasons and dehors the provisions of law and,
therefore, the present writ petition has been preferred.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that
the dispute involved in the present writ petition has already
been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
The State of Jharkhand Vs. Thakur Ajit Kumar & ors., as
reported in 2009(3) J.L.J.R. 435. Similarly, in the case of
Chamru Oraon Vrs. The State of Jharkhand & ors., as
reported in 2008(1) J.L.J.R. 330, learned Single Judge of this
Court has held that the benefit given cannot be withdrawn
without giving an opportunity of being heard and, therefore, the
impugned orders at Annexure 1, 1/A, 1/B, 1/C, 1/D and 1/E
to the memo of present petition, passed by respondent no.5,
withdrawing the benefit given to the petitioner by way of
Reducible Pay Protection, deserve to be quashed and set aside.
3. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that in this case also the impugned orders at
Annexures 1, 1/A, 1/B, 1/C, 1/D and 1/E have been passed in
gross violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore,
they deserve to be quashed and set aside.
4. I have heard learned counsels for the respondents, who have
submitted that the petitioners cannot take the benefit of
wrongly given benefit. If any benefit has been given under
mistake, the same can be withdrawn by the State and,
therefore, the orders at Annexures 1, 1/A, 1/B, 1/C, 1/D and
2
1/E to the memo of present petition have been rightly passed by
the respondents.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for
both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the
case, it appears that:
(i) The petitioners were given the benefit by way of Reducible
Pay Protection with effect from 1st January, 1996 onwards,
uninterruptedly and continuously;
(ii) Never any notice was given to the petitioners that the said
benefit was wrongly given to them and never any objection was
invited from the petitioners nor any hearing was given to the
petitioners, before passing the impugned orders at Annexures 1,
1/A, 1/B, 1/C, 1/D and 1/E to the memo of present petition
and, thus, there is a gross violation of the principles of natural
justice by the respondents by passing the impugned orders. The
bare minimum requirement ought to have been followed or
complied with by the respondent-State authorities before
withdrawing the benefit given to the petitioners by way of
Reducible Pay Protection, much earlier in point of time i.e. from
1st January, 1996 onwards and, therefore, the impugned orders
deserve to be quashed and set aside.
(iii) It also appears that the aforesaid dispute has already been
decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of The
State of Jharkhand Vrs. Thakur Ajit Kumar & ors., as
reported in 2009(3) J.L.J.R. 435 and by learned Single Judge
in the case of Chamru Oraon Vs. The State of Jharkhand &
ors, as reported in 2008(1) J.L.J.R. 330.
(iv) In view of the above decisions, rendered by this Court, the
benefit given to the petitioners by way of Reducible Pay
Protection cannot be withdrawn unilaterally, arbitrarily, in
breach of the principles of natural justice and without giving
any notice or any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.
6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons and
the judicial pronouncements, I hereby quash and set aside the
impugned orders at Annexures 1, 1/A, 1/B, 1/C, 1/D and 1/E
to the memo of present petition.
7. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed, to the aforesaid
extent.
(D.N. Patel, J)
A.K.Verma/