Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Pawan Kumar vs State of Jharkhand and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Aug 30, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/520964

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P. (S) No. 4059 of 2004
Subject
Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Articles 12 & 226: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J., Narendra Nath Tiwari & D.P.Singh, JJ] Writ petition - Maintainability - Whether State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., is a State within meaning of Article 12 ? - Held, From perusal of relevant Rules of byelaws, it is clear that St...

Key legal issue
Service
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Article 226; Service Law

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pawan Kumar

Advocate Safique Rahman, Adv.

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and ors.

Advocate S.K. Verma, SC (Mines)

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Article 226; Service Law
Reported In
[2004(4)JCR658(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. orders.j. mukhopadhaya, a.c.j.1. this writ petition has been preferred by petitioner for direction on the respondents to pay salary for the period from 5th october, 1993 to. october, 1999 during which period he has worked as junior engineer as also the salary for the period from 1st january, 2000 up till date, the period during which he has worked as assistant engineer.2. counsel appearing on behalf of the mines board, hazaribagh submitted that the petitioner was regularized against the post of junior engineer thereby, he cannot claim for salary of the post of assistant engineer.3. having heard,, counsel for the petitioner, as this court finds that this matter should be determined by the respondents at first instance, this case is remitted to the secretary, mines board, hazaribagh to determine as to how the period from 5th october, 1993 to october 1999 and 1st january, 2000 to till date would be counted and what salary the petitioner would be entitled under the law. the respondents will pay the admitted dues, if found payable, within a period of three months from the date of reeeipt/production of a copy of this order.4. if there is a shortage of fund, the secretary, mines board, hazaribagh will communicate the petitioner the dues to which he is entitled and give a time frame for payment of such dues.5. in any case, the admitted dues, if found payable, to be paid immediately on receipt of fund.6. the writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.

1. This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner for direction on the respondents to pay salary for the period from 5th October, 1993 to. October, 1999 during which period he has worked as Junior Engineer as also the salary for the period from 1st January, 2000 up till date, the period during which he has worked as Assistant Engineer.

2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Mines Board, Hazaribagh submitted that the petitioner was regularized against the post of Junior Engineer thereby, he cannot claim for salary of the post of Assistant Engineer.

3. Having heard,, counsel for the petitioner, as this Court finds that this matter should be determined by the respondents at first instance, this case is remitted to the Secretary, Mines Board, Hazaribagh to determine as to how the period from 5th October, 1993 to October 1999 and 1st January, 2000 to till date would be counted and what salary the petitioner would be entitled under the law. The respondents will pay the admitted dues, if found payable, within a period of three months from the date of reeeipt/production of a copy of this order.

4. If there is a shortage of fund, the Secretary, Mines Board, Hazaribagh will communicate the petitioner the dues to which he is entitled and give a time frame for payment of such dues.

5. In any case, the admitted dues, if found payable, to be paid immediately on receipt of fund.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial