SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Jhk) 10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, J.
Binod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
WP(S) No. 4668, 4669 of 2016
Decided on : 10-02-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :M/s Anjani Kumar Verma, Binay Kumar Sinha, Advocates (in both cases)
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Ahmed, Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Mr. Manoj Tandon, Mr. Praveen Akhouri, Mr. Gautam Kumar, Adv


Headnote:

Constitution of India - Employment and Service matter - Back wages – Seeking direction to respondents to take step for absorption of service of petitioners, who are working as Para Teachers as permanent regular teacher taking same and similar decision taken by other State Governments such as State of Orissa, Chhatisgarh and Uttar Pradesh etc. as evident from Govt. Memo, Govt. Letters respectively in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay as per Constitutional mandates as enshrined in Constitution of India - Several petitioners, who are working as Para Teachers, have joined to file both cases for a direction to respondents to take steps for absorption of their services as permanent regular teacher as has been done by some other State Governments of country - Held, Petition shall be deemed to have been presented on behalf of each of petitioners separately. If each of the petitioners has similar interest, they may be allowed to present joint petition but for purpose of payment of court fee, they would be required to pay separate court fee. It is not the case that in case relief is granted to one of the writ petitioners, then all writ petitioners would be benefited automatically. Actually, separate orders of authority would be required to be passed for their absorption considering the individual case. Thus, Court opinion that separate sets of Court fee is required to be filed by writ petitioners - law declared vide order by a Division Bench in W.P.(S) cannot be a binding precedent and in view of discussions made above, the law declared by the Division Bench in LPA ss correct, therefore, Stamp Reporters would be duty bound to make a scrutiny, when a writ petition is filed by several writ petitioners as to whether separate court fee would be required to be filed or a single Court fee would be sufficient and as per the law declared. They would have to make an Office Note and refer the matter to the Bench concerned for a decision on the issue. Such an issue raised by Stamp Reporter cannot be decided by a Lawazima Board, rather the same would be required to be decided by an appropriate Bench – Order accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Ranjan, J.

The following issues have been referred by a learned Single Judge of this Court to a Division Bench :-

    (i) Whether the judgment and the order passed in W.P.(S) no. 2928 of 2008 dated 20.09.2008 or the judgment dated 19th August 1999 passed by the Division Bench of the then Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court in LPA No. 47 of 1999 (R) in the Case of Gautam Singh versus Central Coalfields Limited will govern the field in respect of payment of Court Fee in writ applications where there are more than one writ petitioner in a single writ petition.

(ii) Whether the stamp reporter is duty bound to point out the defect mandatorily if only one set of Court Fee is filed in a writ application when there are more than one writ petitioner, and it is only the “Taxing Officer” or the Court who can ignore the said defect/exempt payment of additional set of Court Fee.

2. Both the writ petitions have been filed inter alia for grant of following reliefs :

    (i) For direction to the respondents to take step for absorption of the service of the petitioners, who are working as Para Teachers as permanent regular teacher taking same and similar decision taken by the other State Governments such as the State of Orissa, Chhatisgarh and Uttar Pradesh etc. as evident from Govt. Memo No. 10557 dated 4.5.2013 (Annexure-7), Govt. Letter dated 07.05.2013(Annexure-8) and Govt. Letter No. 805-06/2015-16 dated 01.06.2015 (Annexure -9) respectively in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay as per the Constitutional mandates as enshrined in the Constitution of India.

(ii) For direction to the respondents to pay the monthly wages/salary to the petitioners in minimum scale of pay with admissible D.A. etc. as provided to regular teachers following the Principle of Equal pay for equal work till a decision is being taken for their absorption as regular Primary Teachers following the settled principles of law.

3. Several petitioners, who are working as Para Teachers, have joined to file both the cases for a direction to the respondents to take steps for absorption of their services as permanent regular teacher as has been done by some other State Governments of the country.

4. The issue for determination is as to whether all the petitioners would have to file separate set of court fee or only one court fee is sufficient. The Registrar General has overruled the objection raised by the office for filing separate court fee on the basis of order dated 20.09.2018 passed by a Division Bench in W.P.(S) No.2928 of 2008. The said Division Bench has held as under :

    “Registry is not justified in directing the petitioner to pay separate set of court-fee as the petitioners have filed only one writ petition. If the writ petitions would have been filed separately, then there would have been justification in asking for separate sets of court-fee.”

The learned Single Judge has recorded that on the basis of said order, all the petitioners have been exempted from paying separate Court Fee by the Lawazima Board and only one set of Court Fee was filed.

5. However, learned Single Judge has referred another decision of the Division Bench of Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court rendered in Gautam Singh vs Central Coalfields Ltd. (LPA No. 47 of 1999 (R) as well as Promod Kumar Akela & ors. vs. The Director, BIT, Sindri, Dhanbad and ors. (LPA No. 100 of 1999(R)). In the aforesaid decisions, a Coordinate Division Bench of Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court, after considering catena of decisions on the issue has come to the conclusion that in LPA No. 47 of 1999(R) arising out of CWJC No. 2114 of 1988(R), 23 persons have jointly filed a writ petition, seeking appropriate writ or direction upon the respondents to reinstate them and regularize their services with back wages. The petitioners therein claimed to be employees of Central Coalfields Ltd. and were aggrieved by the termination of their respective services. The Court held that each of them has independent cause of action arising

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top