Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:22238-DB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.605 of 2024 With I.A. No.12557 of 2024 ----- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand having its registered office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi. .......... Appellants. -Versus- 1. Sheikh Izzatullah, s/o Late Hazi Sheikh Neyamatullah, resident of Mohalla-Japla Choubey, P.O. Japla, P.S. Husainabad, District- Palamau, Jharkhand. 2. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna, P.O.- Secretariat, P.S. Kotwali, District-Patna, Bihar. 3. The Accountant General, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. .......... Respondents. With L.P.A. No.626 of 2024 With I.A. No.12559 of 2024 ----- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand having its registered office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi. .......... Appellants. -Versus- 1. Sheikh Izzatullah, s/o Late Hazi Sheikh Neyamatullah, resident of Mohalla-Japla Choubey, P.O. Japla, P.S. Husainabad, District- Palamau, Jharkhand. 2. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna, P.O.- Secretariat, P.S. Kotwali, District-Patna, Bihar. 3. The Accountant General, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:22238-DB) For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I For the Res. No.1 : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advoate [In both the appeals] For the Res. No.2 : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate [In both the appeals] For the Res. No.3 : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate [In both the appeals] ----- Order No.09 Date: 28.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. I.A. Nos.12557 and 12559 of 2024 seek condonation of delay of 119 days in instituting the accompanying appeals. 3. We have perused the averments in these I.As., and we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown. 4. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and both the aforesaid I.As. are disposed of. 5. These appeals are directed against the learned single Judge’s common judgment and order dated 25th June, 2024 disposing of W.P.(S) No.6139 of 2015 and W.P.(S) No.6819 of 2018 instituted by Sheikh Izzatullah (the respondent no.1 in both the appeals). 6. Mr Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the cases of Basarat Hussain and the respondent no.1 herein were different and the learned single Judge erred in treating the same as identical. He pointed out that the respondent no.1 herein retired on attaining the age of superannuation and, therefore, there was no question of reinstating the said respondent and reinitiating disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned order is vulnerable and warrants interference. 7. Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 in both these appeals defended the impugned order based on the Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:22238-DB) reasoning therein. He pointed out that the respondent no.1 cannot be in a worse-off position merely because he had retired in the meanwhile. Besides, he pointed out that in contradiction to what is now submitted, the appellants, pursuant to the remand, have issued an order purporting to dismiss the respondent no.1 from service with retrospective effect, which is also impermissible in law. For all these reasons, he submitted that both these appeals may be dismissed and the respondent no. 1’s misery not prolonged any further. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material on record. 9. At the outset, we note that in this case, the co-ordinate Bench had directed the release of the Provident Fund dues to the respondent no.1 because there was no reason to withhold the same. 10. Despite such directions, the Provident Fund dues were not being released, forcing the Court to require the personal presence of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, followed by orders that the said officer will not draw his salary until such dues are released. 11. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav has today submitted that the Provident Fund dues have been paid. 12. Accordingly, we vacate the order restraining withdrawal of salary by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. However, we note this only to indicate the conduct of the appellants herein in dealing with their superannuated employee. Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:22238-DB) 13. In this matter, we are satisfied that there is no significant difference or material difference between Basarat Hussain’s case and the case of the respondent no.1. Simply because in the meanwhile the respondent no.1 herein had already attained the age of superannuation and there was no question of his reinstatement, the appellants cannot proceed on the premise that its penalty order had attained any finality even though, the same was quashed by the learned single Judge. Admittedly, all retiral benefits were extended to Basarat Hussain and without any reason the respondent no.1 herein is sought to be discriminated against. 14. Besides, we agree with the contention of Mr Shadab Bin Haque that there is a contradiction in the appellants’ instance. On one hand, it is submitted that no reinstatement was possible because the respondent no.1 had already attained the age of superannuation and, in the same breath, the record shows that the said respondent was once again dismissed with retrospective effect. 15. The learned single Judge has correctly held that such retrospective dismissal was ex facie illegal and could not be sustained. According to us, there is no basis for instituting these appeals, and in any event, they lack merits. Accordingly, we dismiss both these appeals. 16. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav now states that the appellants should be granted liberty to proceed against the respondent no.1 under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:22238-DB) 17. This submission, according to us, is entirely misconceived and only indicates the extent to which the State is ready to proceed to harass the respondent no.1. We grant no such liberty and deprecate the very asking of such liberty in this proceeding. This is more so because the respondent no.1 has retired in 2013 and the State, without sensitivity, wishes to persecute and not merely prosecute an employee who retired in 2013, in this manner. The PCCF appears to be hurt because his salary was stopped by the orders of the coordinate bench and does not wish the retired employee to remain at peace. 18. We were inclined to impose exemplary cost, but Mr Ashok Kumar Yadav pleads without much justification that cost may not be imposed. However, in deference to his request and for the moment, ignoring the conduct of the appellant-State, we refrain from imposing any cost. 19. Mr Ashok Kumar Yadav quite graciously states that all dues to the respondent No.1 will now be paid within four weeks. This statement is appreciated and accepted. 20. Other pending I.As. in these appeals are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 28th July, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 29.07.2026