Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 3400

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Rajwanti Pandey – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 435 of 2014

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amit Kumar
For the Respondents: Lalan Kumar Singh, Nand Kishore Singh

The state, as a model employer, must treat all identically situated employees uniformly; when relief is granted to some, it must be extended to others to prevent discrimination, and the state cannot use the plea of delay to justify its own failure to uphold the principle of parity.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and Article 226 - Service Jurisprudence - Parity - Discrimination - When a particular set of employees is granted relief by the court, all other identically situated individuals are entitled to similar treatment - Failure to do so amounts to violation of the principle of non-discrimination and equality, warranting judicial interference. (Paras 35, 38, 39)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Discretionary relief - Not a straight-jacket formula - Delay cannot be invoked to deny relief when the state, as a model employer, fails to act uniformly towards identically placed persons - A wrongdoer cannot take advantage of its own wrong or failure to implement judicial standards consistently. (Paras 19, 26, 27, 39)

(C) Service Law - Termination - Reinstatement - Entitlement to consequential benefits upon finding of illegality in termination - Denial of benefits to an individual while granting same to others similarly situated is unsustainable in law. (Paras 34, 44)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was terminated from service and subsequently challenged the decision after a significant passage of time. During this period, other employees who were dismissed under identical circumstances were granted reinstatement by judicial orders. The state denied the petitioner the same benefit on the ground of delay and argued that the cases were not identical, despite the lack of logical reasoning for such a distinction.

Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no cogent basis for the state to distinguish the petitioner from other similarly situated employees. It was held that the doctrine of parity must be applied, as the state is obligated to act as a model employer and provide consistent treatment to employees with identical service records. The plea of delay was rejected as the state could not benefit from its own failure to rectify a discriminatory situation.

Issues: The main issues were whether the principle of parity applies to employees even after a delay in approaching the court and whether the state can deny reinstatement to a petitioner when similarly situated counterparts have been reinstated under court orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of equality and non-discrimination mandates that the state treat all identically situated employees uniformly. Relief granted to some cannot be withheld from others on the ground of delay if the state ignored its obligation to provide equal treatment, as the application of such discretionary bars must align with the conscience and equity of the court.

Result: Appeal dismissed; authorities directed to release all arrears of salary and pensionary benefits for the deceased petitioner's estate.

Table of Content
1. summary of procedural history and factual background regarding the appellant's service termination and subsequent appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. summary of rival contentions: state emphasizes delay and laches (fence-sitter principle) while respondent argues for parity and non-discrimination. (Para 12 , 13)
3. analysis of the doctrine of delay and laches and limited application of the fence-sitter principle involving administrative misconduct. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. application of equality principle (art 14) requiring identical treatment for similarly situated employees irrespective of litigation filing date. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
5. final dismissal of the appeal and order for disbursement of terminal and monetary benefits to the legal heir. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)

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.W.J.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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 3400

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDSujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJState of Jharkhand – AppellantVersusRajwanti Pandey – RespondentL.P.A. No. 435 of 2014

The state, as a model employer, must treat all identically situated employees uniformly; when relief is granted to some, it must be extended to others to prevent discrimination, and the state cannot use the plea of delay to justify its own failure to uphold the principle of parity.

Cases Referred (7)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Rajwanti Pandey – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 435 of 2014