Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN
Deo Kishore Thakur, S/o Late Sri Suryadeo Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reappointment vs. original appointment date (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. previous legal decisions impact on reappointment (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. failure to reinstate petitioner (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. entitlement to acp based on original appointment date (Para 8) |
| 5. order to grant acp and retiral benefits (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA SEN, J.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he was given only one ACP that too, considering his date of appointment as 02.11.2001 which infact is the date of reappointment. It is his contention that he could not have been reappointed, in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(S) No.3738 of 2001 dated 16.08.2001. His prayer is that for the purpose of ACP his initial date of appointment should have been the basis.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner was reappointed pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in 2001 and the petitioner has accepted the said reappointment. Once the reappointment has been made, it will be treated to be a fresh appointment, and thus, after ten years i.e in 2011, the petitioner will get the benefit of 1st AC
The court ruled that entitlements must be based on the original appointment date, not a subsequent reappointment, reinforcing court orders for reinstatement.
Long-term service entitles an employee to confirmation and benefits, regardless of administrative hurdles.
The court held that long-serving employees are entitled to confirmation of service and benefits, rejecting the State's refusal as exploitative.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the regular service for the purpose of ACP benefits should commence from the date of absorption, as per the MACP Scheme.
The doctrine of delay and laches can result in the denial of discretionary power and the loss of remedies, based on public policy and utility.
Entitlement to career progression benefits was confirmed based on the appointment date, requiring payment of dues as per admission by the respondents.
Fresh appointment negates counting of prior service for pension; benefits are not owed to reappointed employees per legal precedent.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
