NAJIB NEYAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner-appellant, who was the earlier appointee in the Adult Education Department, which is the Department of Education of the then State of Bihar, was declared surplus and subsequently had to file a writ petition before this Court and similarly situated also filed writ petitions and following the orders passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5036 of 1992 dated 24th May, 1996 and in M.J.C. Nos. 2884 of 1996 and 3172 of 1996 dated 26.11.1997, appointment orders were issued to 37 employees including the petitioner. However, in the said order dated 22nd January, 1998, a condition was incorporated that the appointment shall be treated as fresh appointment and employees shall not be entitled to the benefit of past services including the pensionary benefit. The petitioner had approached this Court in earlier round of litigation for the relief that he has not been paid the pension, leave encashment, gratuity and arrears of salary. That writ petition was disposed of by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 116 of 2009 directing the respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide the said representation in accordance with law, rules, regulations etc. applicable to the case of the petitioner. The said direction was not complied with. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Contempt Petition being Cont. Case (C) No. 206 of 2010. wherein it was disclosed that a detailed speaking order had been passed by the respondent ordering to pay the legally payable amount and the same amount has been paid and rest of the amount will be paid within 16 weeks. The contempt petition was, therefore, disposed of. However, the petitioner is aggrieved against the order contained in Annexure 9, whereby he has been denied the pensionary benefit by not counting the service rendered when he was not absorbed/given appointment, vide Annexure-2 dated 22nd January, 1998.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the said order passed by the department dated 17th April, 2010 along with the order dated 22nd January, 1998 and that writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner cannot challenge the condition incorporated in Annexure-2 by which he got the appointment and got the benefit arising out of the same order dated 22nd January, 1998.