2025:JHHC:30128 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2322 of 2019 --------- Gunadhar Mandal, age about 75 years, son of Late Binod Bihari mandal, resident of 10 Sheuli Road, Pramatha nagar, P.O.- Tatanagar and P.S.- Parsudih, Town-Jamshedpur- 831002, District-Singhbhum East. .....Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Director, Secondary Education and Literacy department (earlier known as Higher Secondary Education, Human Resource Development) Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The District Education Officer, Jamshedpur, District-P.O- and P.S.- Bistupur, District:-Singhbhum East. 3. Shyama Prasad High School, Khas Mahal Tata Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Bistupur, District:-Singhbhum East, through its Managing Committee represented through Secretary, Shyam Prasad High School, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.-Bistupur, District:- Singhbhum East. ....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Adv For the Resp.-State : Ms. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Shwetang Kr. Tiwari, Adv --------- C.A.V. ON: 08.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON:-24/09/2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs; “a) For quashing and setting aside order dated 22.03.2019 (Annexure-9) passed by Respondent No. 2 and 3 pursuant to direction passed by Respondent No. 1, wherein the said respondents has rejected the case of the Petitioner for approval of the post of Head Master of the Petitioner and other consequential benefits, after 15 years from the date of promotion/confirmation of the Petitioner on the post of Head Master by Managing Committee of the Respondent No. 3 School and recommended through Respondent No. 2 to approving authority i.e. Respondent No. 1 and admittedly the Petitioner without 2025:JHHC:30128 2 any stigma has provided service as a Head Master for the period 1998 to 31.01.2004 i.e. till his retirement. b) For issuance of appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the Respondents to approve on the post of Head Master of the Petitioner in terms of clear recommendation and appointment made by the Managing Committee of the Respondent No. 3 School. c) For issuance of appropriate writ or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to fix the pay of the Petitioner on the post of Head Master as per the pay scale for the period of 1998 onwards and also directing the payment of arrears of difference amount for the period from 1998 to 31.01.2004 with statutory interest @ of 9% till the date of payment and further direct the Respondents to refer the matter alongwith service book of the Petitioner to the Accountant General Office, State of Jharkhand for revision of pension on the basis of fix pay scale for the post of Head Master from 2004 onwards and pay the difference of amount on the basis of revised pension fixed. d) For issuance of appropriate writ or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the difference of Gratuity amount on the basis of revised pay scale for the post of Head Master from 1998 onwards.” 2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1966 in the Respondent No.3 School i.e. Shyama Prasad High School, Khas Mahal, Tatanagar. The Petitioner thereafter qualified B.Ed. Examination in 1974 and M.A. Examination in 1978. Pursuant thereto; the pay of the Petitioner was revised, and pay was fixed in the year 1982. In view of the vacancy on the post of Headmaster, the Managing Committee of the school vide resolution dated 2025:JHHC:30128 3 25.01.1998 appointed the Petitioner vide letter dated 27.01.1998 as Head Master of the said school in terms of seniority. After taking charge of the post of Head Master, the Petitioner continued to discharge the duty on the said post of Head Master. During his continuation as a Head Master, the Managing Committee of the aforesaid school after considering the service tenure and the past record of the Petitioner and being fully satisfied with the work so discharged by the Petitioner, vide letter dated 12.05.2003 recommended the case of the Petitioner to Respondent No. 2, District Education Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur for further recommendation. On being satisfied, the District Education Officer duly recommended his name and vide Letter No. 980 dated 10.07.2003 forwarded his case for approval of Director, Secondary Education and Literacy Department (earlier known as Higher Secondary Education, Human Resource Development), Ranchi. The said recommendation failed to invoke any response of the Respondent No. 1 and in the process, the Petitioner was made to retire on attending the age of superannuation on 31.01.2004. From record, it appears that the Petitioner extended his service in the aforesaid school for more than 37 years, wherein for 7 years he duly discharged his duty as a Head Master to the satisfaction without any stigma in his service career. 2025:JHHC:30128 4 Since the office of Respondent No. 1 failed to act on the recommendation of Respondent No. 2 and 3 for approval of the services of the Petitioner on the post of the Head Master, the Petitioner made various representations before Respondent No. 1 requesting therein for grant of his approval. However, the same was of no use as no response, whatsoever, was ever received from the end of Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the Petitioner was compelled to file a Writ Petition being W.P.(S) NO. 5773 of 2010, praying therein inter-alia for a direction upon the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for approval on the post of Head Master and for the direction to the Respondents to fix the pay on the post of Head Master as per the pay scale for the period 1998 onwards with a direction to pay the same after adjustment with interest. 3. It is worth mentioning that during the first round of litigation, the only objection/reasoning given by the Respondent Authorities for not approving the case of the Petitioner on the post of the Head Master was that an objection was raised by the Respondent No. 1 during the pendency of the said Writ Petition vide its Letter dated 02.04.2011. Objection was raised in respect of the proposal of the Petitioner that his promotion has been given effect from the year, 1998 but the proposal for the same was made in the year 2003. 2025:JHHC:30128 5 From bare perusal of the counter-affidavit so filed by the Respondents in the earlier rounds of litigation, which has been duly annexed as Annexure-5 to the present Writ, the reason mentioned therein for such delay in recommendation was due to internal difference in the formation of the present body, “Shiksha Samity”, Jamshedpur leading to delay in recommendation. No other reason, whatsoever, has been attributed in not approving the said proposal. 4. This Court while deciding the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 14.05.2018 has held therein as follows:- “6. After having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the pleadings and relevant records, the case of the Petitioner merits reconsideration due to the following facts and reasons:- (I) Admittedly, the Petitioner has requisite qualification to hold the post of Headmaster and in the year, 1998 a resolution was conveyed by the respondent no. 3 school to fill up the vacant post of Headmaster and accordingly, due to the resolution, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Headmaster and took over the charge from outgoing Headmaster. During his continuance on the post of Headmaster, the petitioner made an application to the competent authority i.e. respondent no. 2 but the said representation did not yield any result and due to such callous and indifferent attitude of the respondents, petitioner suffered since his services was not approved on the post of Headmaster till his retirement i.e. 31.01.2004. (II) Because of the lackadaisical and indifferent attitude of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer therefore, the petitioner’s case deserves to be reconsidered for promotion and approval on the post of Headmaster alongwith consequential service benefits. 7. In view of the reasons stated in the forgoing paragraphs and as logical sequitur to the aforesaid reasons it would be in the interest of justice to dispose of the writ petition to direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for approval on the post of Headmaster for the period from 31.01.1998 to 31.01.2004 in accordance with law and the decision be taken as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of 2025:JHHC:30128 6 receipt/communication of the order. The decision taken thereof be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 5. Surprisingly, the Respondent No. 1 instead of adhering to the aforesaid decision of this Court, vide Office Order No. 594, Jamshedpur dated 22.03.2019, rejected the approval of the Petitioner on the post of Head Master, after 15 years of his retirement, by referring to some of the Minutes of Meeting held during his tenure, stating therein that, “in two consecutive Managing Committee Meetings of the S.P. High School dated 23.08.1999 and 30.08.1999 were to be adjourned due to non-co- operation and obstructions created by the Acting Head Master, Shri Gunadhar Mandal (Petitioner), Teachers’ Representatives and Guardians’ Representatives”. It has been further stated that in a meeting held on 02.04.2000, it was resolved that an advertisement can be made in the Local Daily for the appointment of Headmaster. Based on the said grounds, the approval was rejected by Respondent No. 1 holding therein that, “There must be some other reason behind the proposal of confirmation of the Petitioner from the retrospective date of appointment as Headmaster” and thus rejected the said approval of the Petitioner on the post of Headmaster. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn attention to Annexure-B of the counter-affidavit filed by Respondent no. 2, 2025:JHHC:30128 7 which contains the Minutes of Meeting held on 23.08.1999 and 30.08.1999 based on which the said recommendation has been rejected. From the perusal of the aforesaid Minutes of Meeting one can safely assert that there is no allegation against the Petitioner Gunadhar Mandal. Para 3 of the said Minutes of the Meeting states that due to Hallah and obstructions created by Guardians’ Representatives only the said meeting was adjourned. For ready reference, Annexure-B i.e. Minutes of the Meeting is quoted herein below:- “ The adjourned meeting of the Managing committee of the S.P. High School dt. 23.8.99 is held on 30.8.99 at 7.00 p.m. in the office of the Siksha Samity. Sri J.C. Aich presided over the meeting following members are present. 1. SRI J.C. AICH 2. SRI D.N. DEB. 3. SRI GUNADHAR MANDAL 4. SRI S.S. MANDAL. 5. SRI M. RAHA. 6. SRI R. JOARDAR. 7. SRI S.K. MANDAL. Sri J.C. Aich presided over the meeting. 1. The minutes of the last meeting dt. 13.9.98 were read out and confirmed. 2. It was resolved that the Interview committee for the selection of Asst. teachers in Science and Hindi will comprise of the following persons (1) Sri J.C. Aich (President) (2) Sri S.K. Basu (Vice President) (3) Sri S.K. Mandal (Member) and (4) Sri M. Raha (G.R.) alongwith concerned subject expert, to be selected by the Governing Body of the Shiksha Samity. 3. The agenda was taken up. But the Guardian Representatives started making Hallah and obstructed further proceedings of the meeting. The members were constrained to resolve that the pending agenda will be taken up in the meeting of the Governing Body of the Shiksha Samity and the meeting was again adjourned." 2025:JHHC:30128 8 7. Thus, from the reading of the aforesaid Minutes of Meeting, it is evident that no such allegation is there against the Petitioner. It is also submitted that the Petitioner during his entire tenure of service, was never served with any notice more specifically any Show Cause Notice, neither any departmental proceeding ever initiated against him. 8. It has also been submitted that the impugned order dated 22.03.2019, whereby the approval of the Petitioner on the post of Head Master and further prayer for fixing the pay on the post of Head Master has been denied, is in contravention of the clear legal entitlement of the Petitioner qua his claims is both bad in law as well as in facts that too denying the same after more than 15 years of his retirement. 9. Ld. Counsel for the State has supported the impugned order. 10. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties; admittedly, the Petitioner has duly discharged the duty of a Headmaster from the period 1998 to 31.01.2004 i.e. till his retirement and thus is duly entitled for pay and allowances of the post of Headmaster. Once the work having been taken of a higher post, the person discharging his services on the said post cannot be denied the monetary benefit. The Petitioner being the senior most and duly eligible for the said post, vide letter dated 27.01.1998, was appointed as a Head 2025:JHHC:30128 9 Master of the Respondent No. 3 School by the Managing Committee of the said school and with utmost sincerity and responsibility the Petitioner discharged his duty as a Head Master till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.01.2004. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Dharam Pal,1 after placing reliance to the ratio laid down in Secretary-Cum-Chief Engineer vs. Hari Om Sharma2 has held that if a person is put to officiate on a higher post with greater responsibilities, he is normally entitled to the salary of that post. In this context, Para 6 of the judgment rendered in Hari Om Sharma (supra) is quoted herein:- “6……. If a person is put to officiate on a higher post with greater responsibilities, he is normally entitled to salary of that post. The Tribunal has noticed that the Respondent has been working on the post of Junior Engineer I since 1990 and promotion for such a long period of time cannot be treated to be a stop gap arrangement.” 12. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 22.03.2019 (Annexure-9), deserves to be, and is hereby, quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to approve the promotion of the Petitioner on the post of Head Master for the period from 31.01.1998 to 31.01.2004 and further the Respondents are directed to fix the pay of the Petitioner of the post of Head Master as per the pay scale of the period from 1998 onwards and the differential amount/arrears of salary and other 1 (2017) 9 SCC 395, 2 (1998) 5 SCC 87 2025:JHHC:30128 10 retiral benefits be released in favour of the Petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date f receipt/production of cp this order; failing which, the Petitioner would also be entitled for interest @ 7% per annum from the date of entitlement till he date of payment. 13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A. if any also stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) September 24, 2025 Jharkhand High Court Amardeep/- AFR / NAFR