"bring a proposal insofar as payment of lump sum amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs to the appellant for rendering service from the year 1989 till retirement or attaining the age of superannuation."
In Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha disposed of the LPA by its 4-page long judgement dated October 13, 2025. The judgement was authored by Justice Bajanthri.
The counsel for Director, Post Graduate Diploma Course, Industrial Safety Management, Department of Personnel Management and Industrial Relation, Patna University, the Respondent no.8 furnished a cheque bearing no.828219 of Indian Bank in favour of Jitendra Jumar Singh, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ and the same was handed over to the counsel for Jitendra Kumar Singh, the appellant.
The judgement reads: "In the light of these facts and circumstances, the LPA stands disposed of. The aforementioned amount is settled with appellant as one time and final settlement with the Respondent no.8."
The Court observed:"In the event of return of the cheque for any reasons in that event, appellant is at liberty to file interlocutory application to revive this order."
The other respondents were: Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Registrar, Patna University, Patna University through its Registrar, Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Director, Post Graduate Diploma Course, Industrial Safety Management, Department of Personnel Management and Industrial Relation, Patna University, Kameshwar Pandit and Ritesh Kumar.
Notably, on September 23, 2025, the High Court had passed the following order:
“In the light of our earlier order dated 06.05.2025, Additional counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 7 along with a report at Annexure-R/A, in which they have come to the conclusion that the appellant’s appointment was on ad hoc basis with reference to advertisement read with the fact that Director, Industrial Safety Management, Patna University is not the competent authority to issue advertisement, selection and appointment like appellant therein. The aforementioned material information cannot be appreciated at this distance of time, for the reason, that in favour of the appellant there are two documents which reveals that appellant has been appointed on probation for a period of two years. A person can be appointed on probation only against a permanent post. That apart, on 20.02.1991 the very same Director Industrial Safety Management, Patna University regularized the petitioner’s service w.e.f. 13.02.1991. In this backdrop, no action has been taken against the then Director, Industrial Safety Management, Patna University. For the first time all these issues are racked up in the present litigation. Be that as it may, having extracted the work from the appellant, he is entitled to certain monetary benefits. Perusal of order of appointment one has to drawn inference that he has been appointed against a regular post and on regular basis. Even assuming that he was appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 1989, his services have been regularized w.e.f., 13.02.1991 on 20.02.1991. Therefore, the University authorities are hereby directed to extend service and monetary benefits in the light of our previous order dated 06.05.2025 or in the alternative bring a proposal insofar as payment of lump sum amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs to the appellant for rendering service from the year 1989 till retirement or attaining the age of superannuation."
The LPA was filed against the 2-page long order dated March 9, 2022 by Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma of High Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2022).
The counsel for the petitioner had assailed the notice of retrenchment. The petitioner was holding the post of Assistant in the PGDISM, Patna University, Patna, deputation of workmen as defined under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The University falls within the definition of industry and the petitioner can therefore approach the concerned Labour Court for redressal of his grievance. If a dispute was raised under Section 10A of the Act of 1947 within a period of one month, the Labour Court was directed to adjudicate the dispute directly without waiting for consideration and after hearing both the parties expeditiously not later than a period of one and half years. The petition was disposed of.
Now the Chief Justice Bajanthri's judgement has concluded the case in favour of the appellant.
No comments:
Post a Comment