The state, acting as a model employer, must treat identically situated employees with parity. Principles of delay, laches, and the fence-sitter doctrine cannot be weaponized by the state to deny relief where the state itself failed to act uniformly and arbitrarily discriminated against the litigants.

ORDER :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The appeal is under clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 20.11.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 753 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the order dated 12.05.2012 passed by Director in Chief Health Service, Govt. of Jharkhand has been quashed and the writ Court has further held that the petitioner would be entitled for appointment with effect from 12.05.2012 but petitioner would not be entitled for salary, allowances etc. and further observed that other consequential benefits such as, seniority, etc. would be granted to the petitioner notionally with effect from 12.05.2012.

2. Before entering into the merit of the instant appeal it requires to refer herein that the original writ petitioner namely, Umesh Pandey had died during the pendency of the instant appeal and original writ petitioner (deceased) was being substituted by his wife namely, Rajwanti Pandey i.e. present respondent.

Factual Matrix

3. The brief facts of this case as per the pleading made in the writ petition has been incorporated in the memo of appeal and taken note in the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2013 reads hereunder:

“The original writ petitioner (deceased) was appointed on the post of non-Medical Assistant by order dated 28.10.1986 and his service was terminated on 22.08.1988. The petitioner was again called for interview alongwith one Rajendra Prasad Gupta and Satyendra Narayan Singh.

In the meantime, a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2249 of 1990 (R) was filed which was withdrawn on 23.11.1990 in view of the subsequent development. Another Writ Petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2037 of 1991(R) was preferred by Rajendra Prasad Gupta which was disposed of on 26.09.1991 with a direction to fill up the vacant posts.

An enquiry report was submitted in which it was found that (i) no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before termination of his service and, (ii) the case of one Satyendra Narayan Singh and Rajendra Prasad Gupta was identical to the petitioner and there was one post of non-Medical Assistant on which the petitioner can be adjusted.

In the mean-time the said Rajendra Prasad Gupta was appointed pursuant to order passed in C.WJ.C. No. 2037 of 1991(R). Other similarly situated persons including Satyendra Narayan Singh took the matter to Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of order passed in SLP(C) No 9102-07 of 1990, those persons were also appointed.

However, the petitioner was not re-appointed and therefore, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2360 of 2003 which was disposed of vide order dated 16.12.2009 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the findings recorded by the Court.

The claim of the present petitioner was rejected by order dated 12.05.2012. In the meantime, the petitioner had preferred Cont. Civil Case No. 463 of 2009 which was disposed of by order dated 21.12.2012 with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of termination.

The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 12.05.2012 had preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 753 of 2013 before the learned writ Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 20.11.13 against which the instant appeal has been preferred by the