Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This review application has been filed seeking review of the judgment/order dated 25.02.2022 passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 4628 of 2019 whereby the order dated 21.02.2019 by which claim of the petitioner for payment of full salary/subsistence allowance during suspension period of 14.06.2003 to 29.10.2007 was rejected, was set-aside and the State was directed to give full salary to the writ petitioner for the period of suspension.

It is not in dispute that the order dated 25.02.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4628 of 2019 was subject matter of challenge in LPA No. 248 of 2022 which was disposed of on 12.09.2023.

The perusal of the said order of LPA reveals that the State had relied upon certain documents annexed with I.A. No. 230 of 2023 which were not available before the writ court and consequently the State Counsel sought and was permitted to withdraw the appeal with the liberty to file a review petition. As a sequel to the aforesaid, the present review petition has been filed.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner (State) has submitted that by virtue of decision contained in memo no. 373(4) dated 02.07.2021 the period of suspension from 14.06.2003 to 29.10.2007 was treated to be extraordinary leave by referring to the provisions of Rule 236 of Jharkhand Service Code. The learned counsel submits that the order dated 02.07.2021 could not be brought on record in the writ proceedings which has resulted in a direction upon the review petitioner to pay full salary for the said period and consequently it is submitted that the order dated 25.02.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4628 of 2019 be reviewed.

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner-opposite party herein has submitted that the decision dated 02.07.2021 is contrary to the service jurisprudence and the period of suspension could not have been treated as extra ordinary leave. However, he has fairly submitted that since the said order dated 02.07.2021 was not brought on record in the writ petition, the same has not been challenged in the writ petition. He has also submitted that so far as the review petition is concerned, there is no scope to challenge the said order by filing any amendment on behalf of the original writ petitioner.

Faced with the aforesaid situation, this court is of the considered view that in this review petition there is no scope to pronounce on the legality and validity of the order dated 02.07.2021 which is neither under challenge in the writ records nor can be challenged in this review application. However, the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless.

Consequently, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order dated 02.07.2021 and it is observed that the directions contained in the writ order under review would be subject to the result of the challenge to the aforesaid order dated 02.07.2021.

The learned counsel for the State has also submitted that the aforesaid observation of the court would suffice and the right of the petitioner as well as State will stand protected.

This review petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 338 of 2022

In view of the aforesaid order passed in Civil Review No. 63 of 2024, this court at this stage is not inclined to proceed any further in the contempt proceeding arising out of alleged non-compliance of order passed in the writ petitioner being WP (S) no.4628 of 2019. Accordingly, present contempt proceeding is hereby dropped.