{"id":246951,"date":"2009-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-06-01T22:57:33","modified_gmt":"2016-06-01T17:27:33","slug":"bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Bimal Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 28 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bimal Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 28 August, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n                                   W.P. (S) No. 6094 of 2004\n                                              ---\n      Bimal Kumar Sinha                                                             Petitioner\n                                          Versus\n      1. The Sate of Jharkhand\n      2. M\/s Schenck Jenson &amp; Nicholson Ltd, Kolkata\n      3. Managing Director, M\/s Schenck Jenson &amp; Nicholson, Ranchi\n      4. Sr. Personnel &amp; I.R. Schenck Jenson &amp; Nicholson, Ranchi\n      5. Labour Commissioner, Dept. of Labour and Employment\n         Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi                                     Respondents\n                                            ---\n      CORAM:               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK\n                                            ---\n      For the Petitioner:         Mr. Rajiv Ranjan and Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocates\n      For the State:              Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, JC to GP-II\n      For the Respondents 2 to 4: Mr. S.J. Roy, Advocate\n                                            ---\n                                       CAV ORDER\n                                              ---\n      Reserved On: 27.08.2009                                  Pronounced On: 28.08.2009\n                                               ---\n18. 28.08.2009<\/pre>\n<p>        Challenge in this writ application is to the order dated 30.04.2004, passed<br \/>\n       by the Labour Court, Ranchi in B.S. Case No. 22 of 1999, whereby the petitioner&#8217;s claim<br \/>\n       under section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 read with Rule 21 of<br \/>\n       the Bihar Shops and Establishment Rules 1953 against the respondent establishment for<br \/>\n       his reinstatement and for his payment of monetary compensation for the termination of<br \/>\n       his service was rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>       2.     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>       3.     The petitioner&#8217;s case is that he was initially appointed on 24.12.1987 on the post<br \/>\n       of Assistant Foreman (Production) under the respondent no. 2 Company which on that<br \/>\n       date, was functioning in the name and style of Jenson &amp; Nicholson (I) Ltd.\n<\/p>\n<p>              Subsequently, a new company was formed under the name and style of Schenck<br \/>\n       Jenson &amp; Nicholson Ltd on and from 1.4.1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>       4.     After the formation of the new company, by a notification dated 4.3.1996 issued<br \/>\n      by the previous company, the petitioner&#8217;s services was transferred to the new company<br \/>\n      with effect from 1.4.1996 on the same terms and conditions as was made applicable to<br \/>\n      him under the former company. The transfer and posting of the petitioner with effect<br \/>\n      from 1.4.1996 was confirmed by the Managing Director of the new Company<br \/>\n      (Respondent No. 3) vide letter of confirmation dated 30.3.1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>              The petitioner&#8217;s contention is that though, he was appointed on the post Assistant<br \/>\n      Foreman (Production), but by the nature of the job entrusted to him, he was essentially a<br \/>\n      Store man and his duties were not connected in any manner with the manufacturing<br \/>\n      process or with any subject matter relating to the manufacturing process or with any kind<br \/>\n      of work connected with the manufacturing process.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.      While, he was discharging his duties satisfactorily, the respondent no. 2<br \/>\n      terminated his service with effect from 30.4.1999 by issuing a letter by invoking the<br \/>\n      condition of Clause-10 of the appointment letter dated 24.12.1987.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>6.        Being aggrieved with the order of his termination, the petitioner along with two<br \/>\nother co-employees, whose services were similarly terminated, had approached the<br \/>\nAssistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi on 4.5.1999 with a request to intervene in the<br \/>\nmatter.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.        The Assistant Labour Commissioner, after considering the petitioner&#8217;s case,<br \/>\nissued a letter to the respondent no. 2 to withdraw the letter of termination on the ground<br \/>\nthat such termination amounted to retrenchment.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.        The respondent no. 2 had refused to comply with the instruction of the Assistant<br \/>\nLabour Commissioner by stating that the petitioner being not a workman within the<br \/>\nmeaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the provisions of<br \/>\nsection 25n(2) of the Act was not applicable to the Establishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.        The matter was referred by the Assistant Labour Commissioner to the Deputy<br \/>\nLabour Commissioner vide order dated 22.5.1999 to conduct an inquiry and submit a<br \/>\ndetailed report.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.       When the matter was still pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the<br \/>\npetitioner choose to file his complaint before the court below under the provisions of<br \/>\nsection 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, challenging the order of his<br \/>\ntermination.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.       Before the court below, the respondent Establishment contested the claim of the<br \/>\npetitioner inter-alia on the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                     i.   That the claim of the petitioner before the court below was not<br \/>\n                          maintainable on the ground that the factory premises of the<br \/>\n                          respondent Establishment being located beyond the precincts of<br \/>\n                          Ranchi Municipal Area, and the B.S.E. Act being not applicable,<br \/>\n                          the Labour Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to entertain any<br \/>\n                          complaint under the provisions of Bihar Shops and Establishment<br \/>\n                          Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                     ii. Even otherwise, the complaint petition is fit to be rejected as the<br \/>\n                          complainant was appointed as managerial staff on the post of<br \/>\n                          Senior Assistant Foreman (Mechanical Production) in the Grade-II<br \/>\n                          and was engaged in the manufacturing process under the<br \/>\n                          respondents, as defined under section 2(1) of the Factories Act<br \/>\n                          under which Act, the respondent is registered and was granted<br \/>\n                          licence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                     iii. That the complainant, upon his termination of his service, had left<br \/>\n                          his job after having received the final payments without any<br \/>\n                          objection and therefore, he is stopped from challenging the order<br \/>\n                          of his termination from service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>12.       The learned court below, framed issues for determination in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                                 I. Whether the complainant is an employee within the<br \/>\n                                     meaning of section 2(4) of the Bihar Shops and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                                Establishment Act and Schedule I Item no. 5 of section<br \/>\n                                4(2)?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                            II. Whether Bihar Shops and Establishment Act extend<br \/>\n                                within the territory of Tupudana Industrial Area where<br \/>\n                                the factory is located? Whether Tupudana Industrial Area<br \/>\n                                is under Ranchi Municipal Corporation or not?<br \/>\n                           III. Whether the termination of services of the complainant is<br \/>\n                                illegal or not? Any other relief or reliefs the complainant<br \/>\n                                is entitled to?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>13.    On the issue as to whether the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act extend within<br \/>\nthe territory of Tupudana Industrial Area where the factory is located and whether<br \/>\nTupudana Industrial Area falls under Ranchi Municipal Corporation or not, the learned<br \/>\ncourt below after considering the evidences adduced by the parties, recorded its findings<br \/>\nthat Tupudana area within which the respondent factory is located, does not fall within<br \/>\nthe jurisdiction of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation and The Bihar Shops and<br \/>\nEstablishment Act does not extend to such area, consequently, the court below did not<br \/>\nhave jurisdiction to entertain any complaint under the provisions of the Bihar Shops and<br \/>\nEstablishment Act against the respondent Establishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.    Besides its findings on the issue relating on the point of jurisdiction, the learned<br \/>\ncourt below has also recorded its findings on the other issues, namely, whether the<br \/>\ncomplainant is an employee within the meaning of section 2(4) of the Bihar Shops and<br \/>\nEstablishment Act and Schedule I Item No. 5 of section 4(2) of the Act and has held that<br \/>\nthere was sufficient material on record to show that the complainant was connected with<br \/>\nthe manufacturing process and therefore, the provisions of Bihar Shops and<br \/>\nEstablishment Act, was not attracted and as such, the petitioner&#8217;s complaint does not<br \/>\ncome under the purview of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.    The petitioner assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the learned<br \/>\ncourt below has committed serious error by proceeding to decide on both the above<br \/>\nmentioned issues simultaneously. Learned counsel for the petitioner would explain that<br \/>\nhaving decided on the issues, that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the<br \/>\npetitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, on the ground<br \/>\nthat the respondent factory premises is located beyond the jurisdiction of Ranchi<br \/>\nMunicipal Corporation and the Act does not extend to the area where the factory is<br \/>\nlocated, the learned court below ought not to have proceeded further to decide on the<br \/>\nissue as to whether the petitioner is a workman and employee under the Bihar Shops and<br \/>\nEstablishment Act or not. Such a decision, according to the learned counsel, is nonest and<br \/>\ntherefore, the Award of the court below is bad on both issues.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.    Per Contra, the respondents in their counter-affidavit would want to offer support<br \/>\nto the impugned order of the court below. Counsel for the respondent, by referring to the<br \/>\nevidences on record, would explain that by virtue of the nature of job rendered by the<br \/>\npetitioner, his was exclusively a supervisory job in Grade-II of the managerial cadre of<br \/>\nthe respondent factory and that the learned court below has rightly considered these<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      aspects and recorded its findings that the petitioner cannot claim any relief under the<br \/>\n      provisions of Bihar Shops and Establishment Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>      17.     Learned counsel, in course of argument, would however, find fault with the<br \/>\n      findings of the court below on the issue relating to jurisdiction and want to inform that<br \/>\n      there appears some error of record in as much as, the respondent factory is not located in<br \/>\n      the Tupudana Industrial Area. Rather, it is located in the Tupudana Industrial Estate<br \/>\n      which certainly falls within the jurisdiction of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>      18.     Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and having gone through the<br \/>\n      impugned Award of the court below, I find force in the argument advanced by the learned<br \/>\n      counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      19.     Having recorded its findings that the respondent factory premises being located in<br \/>\n      the Tupudana Industrial Area, does not fall within the jurisdiction of Ranchi Municipal<br \/>\n      Corporation and therefore, the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act has no territorial<br \/>\n      jurisdiction over the respondent factory and consequently, the complaint filed by the<br \/>\n      petitioner under the aforesaid Act, cannot be entertained as being beyond the court&#8217;s<br \/>\n      jurisdiction, the learned court below has obviously declared that it lacks authority to<br \/>\n      entertain the petitioner&#8217;s complaint under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act or to<br \/>\n      decide on the merits of the petitioner&#8217;s case under the Act. Having recorded such finding,<br \/>\n      the learned court below ought not to have proceeded to decide on the merits of the case<br \/>\n      and on the issue as to whether the petitioner is a workman and employee under the Bihar<br \/>\n      Shops and Establishment Act. Such decision is totally uncalled for and is redundant. The<br \/>\n      decision on merits is nonest and is bad. It may also be noted, as rightly pointed out by the<br \/>\n      learned counsel for the petitioner, the effect of such decision on merits would deprive the<br \/>\n      petitioner to avail his remedy under the other laws and before other forums to which he<br \/>\n      may be legitimately entitled.\n<\/p>\n<p>      20.     In the light of the above discussions, and finding merit in this application, the<br \/>\n      same is allowed to the extent that the decision of the court below, as recorded in the<br \/>\n      impugned Award, on the merits of the case relating to the issue whether the petitioner is a<br \/>\n      workman and employee under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, is quashed. Since<br \/>\n      admittedly, the petitioner was employed under the respondents and his service was<br \/>\n      terminated, as such, without going into the merits of the case or propriety of the order of<br \/>\n      termination, and in the interest of justice, I direct the respondent company to pay the<br \/>\n      petitioner his terminal dues, if not already paid to him, within one month from the date of<br \/>\n      this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>              With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                       (D.G.R. Patnaik, J)<br \/>\nRanjeet\/A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Bimal Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 28 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6094 of 2004 &#8212; Bimal Kumar Sinha Petitioner Versus 1. The Sate of Jharkhand 2. M\/s Schenck Jenson &amp; Nicholson Ltd, Kolkata 3. Managing Director, M\/s Schenck Jenson [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-246951","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bimal Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bimal Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-01T17:27:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bimal Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 28 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-01T17:27:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1704,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Bimal Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-01T17:27:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bimal Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 28 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bimal Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bimal Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-01T17:27:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bimal Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 28 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-01T17:27:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009"},"wordCount":1704,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009","name":"Bimal Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-01T17:27:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bimal-kumar-sinha-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bimal Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 28 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246951","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=246951"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246951\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246951"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246951"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246951"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}