The court ruled that entitlements must be based on the original appointment date, not a subsequent reappointment, reinforcing court orders for reinstatement.

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 ACP and thereafter since, the petitioner has superannuated in year 2017, he is not entitled for any other benefit.

4. After going through the records, I find that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year, 1986. Vide order dated 08.10.1991, he was terminated. Along with the petitioner several others were also terminated, who approached before the Hon’ble Patna High Court Ranchi Bench in C.W.J.C. No.5693/91(R) and analogous cases, thereafter, those persons have got the relief.

5. Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.3738 of 2001 which was disposed of on 16.08.2001 (Annexure-5). While disposing the aforesaid writ petition, the learned Single Judge has held that in view of the decision given by the Hon’ble Patna High Court and as the petitioner was posted at Chandil, he was approached the Labour Commissioner, Labour Appointing and Training Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for grant of such relief, but his case was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the earlier writ petition. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, considering the facts of his case has passed the following order:-

Having regards to the facts and circumstances, I allow the petitioner to approach Labour Commissioner. Labour, Employment and Training Department, Govt. of Jharkahnd, Ranchi who will decide the representation by a reasoned order within two months. If the petitioner is found similarly situated to the petitioners of CWJC No.5693/91(R) and other analogous cases, he will pass order relating to reinstatement of the petitioner, without allowing back wages in his favour. If any adverse decision is taken grounds be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period of two months.

6. From the aforesaid order, it is clear that this Court had directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner though without back wages, if his case was found similar to that of petitioners in C.W.J.C.No.5693/91 (R).

7. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner was found similar to the others. Thus by virtue of Annexure-6, the petitioner was taken in service, but surprisingly, he was not reinstated, rather a fresh appointment was granted. The petitioner joined the service naturally because he was not in a position to bargain with the might of the State. The State should have reinstated the petitioner, but in place of reinstating him, they reappointed him which is an illegality committed by the State by taking advantage of their might.

8. When the question of ACP/MACP arose, admittedly, the petitioner was granted ACP on 2011 considering his date of appointment as 2001, which is the date of fresh appointment. When there was a direction of reinstatement, he should have been reinstated and his appointment has to date back to the original date of appoin