2025:JHHC:19468 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2826 of 2025 ---------- Subhash Kumar Singh, son of Jay Prakash Singh, resident of 13, Sonar Dangal, Chirkunda, Nirsa, P.O. Chirkunda, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh. 5. The District Education Officer, Joint Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV ---------- 07/ 16.07.2025 The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs: a. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) /order(s)/direction(s) particularly writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to count/regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of illegal removal i.e. 03.09.1992 till the date of reinstatement i.e. 02.03.2003 as he was allowed to join on his original post of Adeshpal and since then he had regularly served different schools in the District of Dhanbad; and b. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) /order(s)/direction(s) particularly writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for all the post-retirement and pensionary benefits taking into consideration that he was illegally terminated 03.09.1992 and on the orders of this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner was again allowed to resume from 03.03.2003 and as such, this period of his service on and from 03.09.1992 till 02.03.2003 may be regularized and counted his services for granting of all consequential benefits after his retirement as post-retirement and pensionary benefits to which he may be entitled; c. For a direction to the respondent that this period may be counted for all the purposes as the petitioner was illegally removed/terminated from the services and subsequent to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner was allowed to resume his duty as Adeshpal and is presently working at the High School, Kumardubi, Dhanbad without there being any adverse remark as against throughout his service career; 2025:JHHC:19468 2 d. For direction upon the respondent to make payment of the arrears of the petitioner for which the petitioner is entitled on and from 03.09.1992 till 02.03.2003 as his salary which has not been paid to the petitioner. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue involved in this case has been covered by the order passed by a Co- ordinate Bench in W.P.(S). No. 6054 of 2022 (Umesh Kumar Singh vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) For brevity the relevant portion of the order is extracted herein below: 4. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the year 1989. Subsequently, the service of the petitioner was terminated by the order dated 23.07.1992, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.3540 of 1993(R) and thereafter in W.P.(S) No. 1332 of 2003 and vide order dated 16.7.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1332 of 2003, the termination order of the petitioner was quashed, which was further challenged by the respondent-State before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 124 of 2009. Similarly situated persons also moved this Court against their termination order, which was allowed and the State has preferred L.P.A. No. 64 of 1998(R). Again the State has lost in appeal. Against the order passed in L.P.A. Court, again the State filed S.L.P. No. 7153 of 1999 which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.01.2000. Thus, quashing order has attained finality. 5. In this background, it is an admitted position that so far as consequential benefit including counting of service for intervening period is concerned, there is no doubt that if the petitioner has not worked for certain period on the basis of No work No Pay, the order can be passed, but there are parameters of passing such order. If the Court comes to the conclusion that there is illegality on behalf of the authority concerned not to allow the petitioner to work, the Court is required to pass appropriate order. 6. In the case at hand, it has already been held by this Court in earlier round of litigation that the said termination order was not in accordance with law and, as such, the termination order was quashed, which was affirmed upto the Division Bench and so far as case of similarly situated persons are concerned, it was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also. Thus, for the wrong of the respondent-State, the petitioner was prevented to work and if such a situation is there, the case of the petitioner is covered in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep son of Raj Kumar Jain v. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., reported in (2022) 3 SCC 683, in which, it has been held that the question arises as to whether the back wages is to be given and as to what is to be the extent of that back wages, these are the aspects which will depend on the facts of the case as noted in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324. 7. Thus, it is well settled that in a case where it is found that the employee was not at all at fault and yet, he was visited with illegal termination or termination which is actually activised by malice, it may be unfair to deny him the fruits of the employment which he would have enjoyed, but for the illegal/malafide termination, he was not allowed. 2025:JHHC:19468 3 8. It is crystal clear that the petitioner was not allowed to work, for which liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioner and in that view of the matter, it is a fit case to command upon the respondent-State in the nature of mandamus to count the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 23.07.1992 to 30.11.2009 and to pay retirement benefits counting that period. The respondent-State is directed to release salary and other consequential benefits including retirement benefits in favour of the petitioner counting the said period within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of. 3. Relying upon the aforesaid order, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is also entitled for similar benefits. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State very fairly submits that the issue involved in this case is same and similar with that of W.P.(S). No. 6054 of 2022. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the respondent-State to count the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 03.09.1992 to 02.03.2003 and pay retiral benefits counting the said period. The respondent-State is further directed to release salary and other consequential benefits including retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner counting the said period, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) kunal/-