2025:JHHC:33091 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5098 of 2018 Rabindra Kumar Singh, aged about 58 years, son of Late Keshav Prasad Singh, residing at Quarters No. B/2180, Sector-II, Cite-IV, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District- Ranchi. ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, having office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and District- Ranchi. 2. The Joint Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and District- Ranchi. 3. The Under Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Town and District- Ranchi. ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Karamjit Singh Chhabra, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Apoorva Singh, AC to SC (Mines)-II -------- Order No. 08/Dated: 4th November 2025 The instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1. (i) For a direction commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Under Secretary to the post of Deputy Secretary with effect from 30.05.2016 and consequently to the post of Joint Secretary with effect from 30.07.2018, the date when the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to such posts. (ii) To hold and declare that on the date the notifications dated 30.5.2016 and 30.7.2018, there was no departmental proceedings pending against this petitioner, as the memo of charge was issued only on 1.8.2018 and the same was served thereafter to the petitioner and hence, the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary, as also to the post of Joint Secretary. (iii) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner was appointed on the post of 2025:JHHC:33091 2 Assistant in Bihar (now Jharkhand) Secretariat Service. On 01.09.1988, service of the Petitioner was confirmed on such post. After the bifurcation of the existing State of Bihar, the service of the Petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand. The Petitioner was promoted from the post of Assistant to the post of Section Officer on 20.07.2009. On 20.11.2008, the State of Jharkhand issued Resolution (Annexure-1); whereby complete guidelines with respect to the promotion have been laid down by the Government with respect to suspension / disciplinary / criminal proceeding etc. The petitioner was further granted promotion to the post of Under Secretary on 03.06.2013. Ultimately, the seniority list of the cadre of the Petitioner known as Jharkhand Secretariat Service was published on 01.07.2011, in which, the name of the Petitioner finds place at serial no. 399 and co-employee, namely, Sri Satish Kumar Jaiswal at serial no. 405. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that several juniors to the Petitioner were promoted from the post of Under Secretary to post of Deputy Secretary, which includes the name of said Sri Satish Kumar Jaiswal. Further, promotion of one Shri Ram Shankar Rai involved in a criminal case was withheld for several years; however, after acquittal he was granted promotion with retrospective date on higher posts at a time by the notification dated 27.07.2018. Again, several other juniors to the Petitioner were promoted from the post of Deputy Secretary to the post of Joint Secretary, which includes the name of Shri Satish Kumar Jaiswal. 4. The facts further reveal that on 01.08.2018, a memo of charge was issued to the Petitioner. The petitioner has been requesting the respondents for promotion on higher post as was done in the case of juniors to the petitioner however the same has yielded no fruitful result as yet. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ application. 5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this is a peculiar case where the Petitioner has not been considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion on higher post in spite of 2025:JHHC:33091 3 the fact that the charge-sheet was issued much after the promotion which was given to his co-employees who were similarly situated. He further draws attention towards Annexure-2 to the writ application which is the seniority list of the cadre of the Petitioner known as Jharkhand Secretariate Service where the name of this Petitioner appears at serial no.399 and that of Shri Satish Kumar Jaiswal at serial no. 405; however, the said Satish Kumar Jaiswal was promoted on 30.07.2018 and the case of the petitioner has not even been considered in spite of the admitted fact that the charge was issued after the co-employee who was junior to the petitioner was promoted. Learned counsel contends that now the law has been well settled and the procedure has been laid down in the case of “Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman”1. 6. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment learned counsel submits that though in the latter half of his service, the petitioner has been granted promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary notionally from 30.05.2016 but he has not been granted promotion to the post of Joint Secretary from 30.07.2018 when the juniors to the Petitioner have been promoted to such post as such the concerned Respondent may be directed to grant promotion to this Petitioner from the date the juniors were given promotion i.e. 30.05.2016 from the post of Under Secretary to Deputy Secretary and from 30.07.2018 from the post of Deputy Secretaty to Joint Secretary. Learned counsel lastly submits that the Petitioner had retired on 31.10.2020 during pendency of this writ application. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondents opposes the prayer of the Petitioner; however, could not dispute the fact that the above referred judgment is applicable in this case and further he also not disputed that the memo of charge was issued to the Petitioner on 01.08.2018 and at the time of Departmental Promotion Committee meeting; no criminal or civil case was pending against this petitioner. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that Annexure-2 is the 1 (1991) 4 SCC 109 2025:JHHC:33091 4 seniority list of the cadre of the Petitioner known as Jharkhand Secretariate Service which was published on 01.07.2011 and the name of the Petitioner finds place at serial. no. 399; whereas the co-employee, namely, Satish Kumar Jaiswal who has been granted promotion later on was at serial no. 405. It further appears that on 30.05.2016, several juniors to the petitioner were promoted from the post of Under Secretary to the post of Deputy Secretary which also includes the name of Satish Kumar Jaiswal. 9. From record it is evident that the memo of charge was issued against the Petitioner on 01.08.2018 (Annexure-6). Further, when the promotion list from the post of Under Secretary to the post of Deputy Secretary and from the post of Deputy Secretary to Joint Secretary was issued, there was no any criminal or departmental proceeding pending against this Petitioner. In other words, when the promotion of other co-employees was being considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, no proceeding whatsoever, either civil or departmental, was pending against this Petitioner which actually initiated by issuance of memo of charge on 01.08.2018. As such, the action of the Respondents for not granting promotion to the Petitioner from the due date appears to be bad in law. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of “K. V. Janankiraman” (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 17, 19 and 25 has held ad under: “17. There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion No. 1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions. .......................................................................................................................... 19. The Full Bench of the Tribunal, while considering the earlier Memorandum dated January 30, 1982 has, among other things, held [Ed.: See (1987) 3 ATC 174, 195 in para 36] that the portion of paragraph 2 of the memorandum which says “but no arrears are allowed in respect of the period prior to the date of the actual promotion” is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because withholding of salary of the promotional post for the period during which the promotion has been withheld while giving other benefits, is discriminatory when compared with other employees who are not at the verge of promotion when the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. ......................................................................................................................... 2025:JHHC:33091 5 .......................................................................................................................... 25. We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of “no work no pay” is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him. It is for this reason that F.R. 17(1) will also be inapplicable to such cases.” 10. Though the Petitioner has been granted promotion from Under Secretary to the post of Deputy Secretary retrospectively, but no financial benefit was given to him which is against the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court. In paragraph no. 25 of “K. V. Jankiraman” (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “this is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons although the work is offered to him”. Thus, only granting promotion notionally to the Petitioner is bad in law. At the cost of repetition the co-employee, namely, Satish Kumar Jaiswal who was at serial no. 405 as per Annexure-2, has been granted promotion on 30.05.2016 and 30.07.2018 but the Petitioner who was at serial no. 399, due to the act of the Respondents has been denied promotion for their fault. 11. As such, it is held that the promotion which has already been granted to the Petitioner from the post of Under Secretary to the post of Deputy Secretary, retrospectively, without any financial benefit, is bad to the extent that the Respondents are duty bound to pay him the financial benefit of promotion. Likewise, the Petitioner is also entitled for promotion with the juniors including Satish Kumar Jaiswal. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to grant promotion to this Petitioner from the post of Deputy Secretary to Joint Secretary from 30.07.2018. 12. It has been informed by learned counsel for the parties that the Petitioner had retired on 31.10.2020; as such, the Respondents are directed to calculate the monetary benefits after verifying the records considering him promoted since 30.05.2016 from the post of Under Secretary to Deputy Secretary and considering him promoted from the post of Deputy Secretary to Joint Secretary since 30.07.2018 and after calculation take a formal decision of paying the entire monetary benefit. It is made clear that the entire monetary benefit shall be 2025:JHHC:33091 6 extended to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 13. It goes without saying that pursuant to the financial rectification, the pension paper also be rectified so that Petitioner would not face any hinderance in revise pension. The entire exercise shall be completed in the aforesaid stipulated period. 14. Accordingly, the instant writ application is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 4th November, 2025 Amit Uploaded on 12/11/2025