IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(CIVIL WRIT PETITION JURISDICTION

Cont. Case (civil) No, O of 2022

Surender Prasad. ....Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Jharkhand & others ..Respondents.

Sub:-For the contempt proceedings against the order

/judgment dated-10.02.2022 in W.P(S) No.- 794 of 2021.

INDEX

Serial Annexures Particulars Page

1 Synopsis with list of dates

2 Contempt case with its affidavit

1-11
3 Annexure1 The C.C of the order and judgment

dt-10.02.2022 passed 1n W.P(S)

12-1
no.794 of 2021.

4 Annexure 2 The photocopy of the representation

13-2o
dt-23.05.

***VAKALATNAMA***
 A.LR, No.....RSt.

tanlyCase Dy. No loS6..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(CIVIL WRIT PETITION JURISDICTION

Cont. Case (civil) No. 5 Oof 2022

Surender Prasad. .....Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Jharkhand & others

....Respondents.

Sub:-For the contempt proceedings against the order /iudgment

dated- 10.02.2022in W.P(S) No.- 794 of 2021.

SYNOPSIS WITH THE LIST OF DATES

PRAYER:- For initiation of Contempt proceedings and punishment

thereupon the contemnors for deliberate and willful
violation of order dated- 10.02.2022 passed in WP(S) No.
794 of 2022 by Hon'ble Justice Dr. S.N Pathak
of this
Hon'ble High Court.
Annexure-1 The Hon ble High Court allowed the writ
petition vide
10.02.2022 order and judgment dated 10.02.2022 directing
the
respondents to calculate the difference of salary wef
31.12. 2013 when he was working as in-
charge Deputy
 Director and from 5.02.2015 to 30.09.2021when he was
working as In-Charge Joint Director and passed an order

of payment including the pensionery benefits within a

period of l6 weeks from the date of receipt / order, failing

which the petitioner was declared to be also entitled for

simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of

entitlement till the date of payment.

Annexure 2 Petitioner obtained the certified copy of the order under
23.05.2022 offence and represented the same before the contemnors
vide his letter dt-23.05.2022, Yet no compliance till date.

Hence, This contempt Case.

 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(CIVIL WRIT PETITION JURISDICTION

Cont. Case (civil) No. 0 of 2022

In the matter of an application

under article 215 of the

Constitution of India read

with Section 10 & 11 of the

Contempt of Court Act.

And

In the matter of :

Surender Prasad ,aged about 60yrs,son of Shri Hari Prasad, resident

of 305,Ganpati Palace, Shukla Colony, at P.O. Hinoo, P.S Doranda

,District Ranchi,
 2

fetones

VERSUS

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Arun kumar singh, The Principal Secretary,

Medical Health
Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of
Jharkhand, having its Office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.0. &%
P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
3. Smt. Vandana Dadel, the Principal Secretary, Personnel
Administrative Reforms &% Rajbhasha Department, Government
of
Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa,
P.0. &
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

RESPONDENTS/ Contemnos
To,
The Hon ble Mr. Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan,
the Chief Justice
of the High Court of Jharkhand
and His Other Companion
Judges of the said Hon'ble Court.

The Humble petition on

behalf of the petitioner

above named.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
 'ANNEXURE-1
WP(S) No. 194 of 2021

IN THE HIGH C URT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S)No. 794 of 2021
Surendra Prasad Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Medical Health Education and Family Welfare
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforns &
Rajbhasha Departnent, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK

(Through Video Conferencing)

For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Sr.S.C.-I

3/10.02.2022 Heard the parties.

2. Though the petitioner has approached this Court with multiple
prayers, but during course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
confines his argument only on the point that the petitioner should get the
difference of salary for the period from 31.12.2013 to 5.2.2015 when he was
working as_ in-charge Deputy Director (Dugs), Drnugs Control Directorate,
Ranchi (minus the benefits accrued on grant of 2nd MACP with effect from
20.5.2014) and from 5.2.2015 till his superannuation on 30.09.2021 when he
was working as In-charge Joint Director, Drugs Control Directorate, Ranchi,
as also the consequentialpensionery benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as
Drug Inspector on 19.5.1994. As per Jharkhand State Drug Control Service
(Appointment &Service Condition) Rules, 2011, the Kalawadi for promotion
to the next higher post in the cadre of the Drug Inspector was stipulated as
five years for each post. However, the Government by Resolution contained in
Memo No. 10483(3) dated 24.10.2014, relaxed the said Kalawadi to one year,
provided the concern employee has completed 20 years of service and further
if posts are vacant, the compulsion to continue working in the present held
post for at least one year for promotion is not required and now it will be
mandatory to take charge of each level of promotion and only after taking
charge, promotion to the next level will be given. Thereafter, instead of
granting promotion on regular basis, the petitioner was posted as In-charge
 w.P(S) No. 794 of 2
13)
Directorate,
Ranchi by Notification
Control
(Dr1gs), Drugs Notification No. 11(16)
Deputy Director subsequently by
and
No. 141(16) dated 31.12.2013 Control Directorate, Ranchi.
(Drugs), Durgs
dated 5.2.2015 as Joint Director
petitionerwas granted the
Director,the
However, during his posting as Joint scale of Rs.
20.5.2014 in the pay
benefit of 2nd MACP with effect from equivalent to pay
Grade Pay 7600, which is
15,600-39,100/- Pay band-IIl, dated 7.4.2016.
scale of Deputy Director, by Notification No. 34(16)
with
4. It is further case the petitioner that this petitioner along
of
the
SCarlier moved before this Court in WP(S)No. 3185 of 2013, with
order
grievance that they were not given régular promotion. Pursuant to the
the
svd by this Court, formal order granting promotion to the petitioner on
o Or Assistant Director (Dngs) was issued by Notification No. Z25(10)
dated 31.7.2019. Thouch the netitioner retired in the month of Septemoer,
021 serving as Joint Director from 5.2.2015 itself, but his substantive post
was ofAssistant Director.
5
Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing on behali of tne
petitioner confines his argument only on the point that petitioner should get
the difference of salary for the period from 31.12,2013 to 5.2.2015 while he
Was working as-in-charge- Deputy Director-fminus the benfits accrued on
grant of 2nd MACP with effect from 20.5.2014) and likewise the
petitioner is
also entitled for the difference of salaryfrom 5.2.2015 till
30.9.2021, when he
was working as In-charge Joint Director and also to
pay consequential
pensionery benefits.
6 Learned counsel contended that now, the law is well settled that
if any employee is working on any post, may not be on
substantive posting,
but he is entitled for the difference of salary if the
incharge post is not
an ad
hoc arrangement and the petitioner worked from 31.12.2013 to
S.2.2015 as
Deputy Director and further from 5.2.2015 till his retirement as Joint Director
on In-charge basis, so it cannot be said to be an stop gap
arrangement. To
buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the
decision in the case of Arindam Chattopadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of WE. &
Ors, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 152. Learned counsel also relies upon the
decisions reported in 2013 vol.4 JLJR 306, 2013 vol.4 JLJR 308 and the
order delivered in W.P.(S) No. 1661 of 2010, To strengthen his argument,
L-bru8
 ()
W.P(S) No, 794 of 2021

leamed counsel places heavy reliance upon a recent decision of this Court
rendered in the case of Chanda Hembrom Vs. The State of Jharkhand &
aà Ors, in W.P.(S) No. 6618 of 2013. He lastly submits that the Hon'tble Apex
Court has held that if it is not a stop-gap arrangement then the employee is
entitled for differenceof salary of the in-charge post.
7. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned Sr.S.C.-, representing the
respondent State, opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that in the
very first line of notification dated 31.12.2013, it has been indicated that the
employee will get the salary of his substantive post itself and will not get the
Salary of incharge post and if the petitioner was not interested then he should
have not joined the post. Learned counsel submits that the issue of promotion
of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director was under consideration, but
in view of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, the same could not be done, as
allpromotions in the State services were banned by the order of the State. He
further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Ramakant Shripad
Sinai Advalpalkar v Union of Indiaand ors. reported in AIR 1991 SC 1145
in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para 6 as under:
"6. The third contention is that appellant's in-charge'
arrangements-in-thehigher post had continued for s0 long
a period that a determination of equivalence on the basis of
his lower substantive post would become arbitrary. This
contention ignores the fact that an in-charge 'arrangement
is not a recognition of or is necessarily based on seniority
and that, therefore, no rights, 'equities or expectations
could be built upon it.' The third contention is also
unmeritorious.

Relying upon the aforesaid decision, learned counsel submits that

there is no error in the action of the respondents since the petitioner was on in
charge post, as such he was not entitled for difference of salary.
8 Having heard learned counsel for the parties across the Bar, it
appears that the petitioner along with others earlier moved before this Court
praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider their case
for promotion. The said writ petition, being W.P.(S) No.3185 of 2013 was
disposed of by giving direction to the respondent authorities to take a decision
in the matter of promotion of the petitioners which the department finally
took in the year 2019 by promoting the petitioner to the post of Assistant
Director.
 4
W.P(S) No. 794
of
9. The dispute in this case arose from 31.12.2013
when
petitioner was given in-charge post of Deputy Director by Notification the
31.12.2013. Admittedly, in the said notification, it was indicated thatdated
petitioner will get the salary of his substantive post. At that very moment. the
petitioner was not in a position to refuse that offer for the sole reason
that in
the said notification; no period was mentioned
that as to whether it is an ad
hoc or stop-gap arrangement or as to
whether it is a type of permanent
incharge post. Even otherwise, appointment or promotion
of any employee is
a contract in service jurispudence
and unreasonable contract canot stand
the eye of law. Reference in this regard in
may be made to the decision rendered
in the case of Central Inland
Water Corpn. &anr v. Brojo Nath
anr. reported in AIR 1986 SC 1471 Ganguly &
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
in paragraph 90 as under:
"90. Should then our courts
not advance with the times?
Should they still continue to cling to outmoded
and outworn ideologies? Should
we not
concepts
caps to match the fashion of adjust our thinking
the day? Should all
jurisprudential development pass us by, leaving us
floundering in the sloughs of 19th century
the strong be permitted theories?
push the weak to the Should
Should they be allowed totoride wall?
Should the courts sit back. roughshod over the weak?
strong trample underfoot the and wateh supinely while the
Constitution for our country. rights
Our
of the weak? We have a
judges are bound by their
oath to "uphold the
Constitution and
Constitution was enacted to secure to all the laws". The
country social and economic the citizens of this
justice.
Constitution guarantees to all persons Article 14 of the
law and the equal equality before the
protection of the laws. The principle
deducible from the above
case is in consonance withdiscussions on this part of the
secure social and economic right and reason, intended to
mandate of the great equalityjustice
clause
and conforms to the
principle is that the courts will not in Article 14. This
called upon to do so, strike enforce and will, when
unreasonable contract, or an unfair down an unfair and
clause in a contract, entered into and unreasonable
not equal in bargaining power. between parties who are
It
exhaustive list of all bargains of this is difficult to give an
visualize the different type. No court
afairs of men. One situations which can arise in can
can only attempt to give the
illustrations. For instance, the above principle will some
where the inequality of bargaining apply
great disparity in the economic power is the result of the
parties. It will apply where the strength of the contracting
ineguality is the result of
of2021

WPIS) No. 794 of 2021

circumstances, whether of the creation of the parties or
It willapply to situations in which the not.
position in which he can obtain goods or weaker party is in a
of livelihood only upon the terms services or means
imposed by the stronger
party or go without them. It will also
has no choice, or rather no meaningfulapply where a man
choice,
his assent to acontract or to sign on the dottedbut to give
prescribed or standard form or to accept a set ofline in a
rules as
part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and
unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules
may be. This principle, howeve, will not apply where the
bargaining power of the contracting parties is equal or
almost equal. This principle may not apply where both
parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial
transaction. In today s complex world of giant corporations
with their vast infrastructural organizations and with the
State through its instrumentalities and agencies entering
into almost every branch of industry and commerce, there
can be myriad situations which result in unfair and
unreasonable bargains between parties possessing wholly
disproportionate and unequal bargaining power. These
cases canneither be enumerated nor fully illustrated. The
court must judge each case on its own facts and
circumstances".
Emphasis supplied
10. It further transpires that the issue involved in this case
came for
consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arindam
Chattopadhyay & Ors. v. State of W.B & Ors. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 152
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para 13 as under:

"13. Reverting to the facts of this case, wve find that

although the appellants were recruited as ACDPOs, the
State Government transferred and posted them to work as
CDPOs in ICDS Projects. If this would have been a
stopgap arrangement for few months or the appellants had
been given additional charge of the posts of CDPO for a
fixed period, they could not have legitimately claimed
salary in the scale of the higher post i.e. CDP0. However,
the fact of the matter is that as on the date of filing of the
original application before the Tribunal, the appellants
had continuously worked as CDPOs for almost 4years and
as on the date of filingof the writ petition, they had worked
on the higher post for about 6 years. By now, they have
worked as CDPOs for almost 14 years and discharged the
duties of the higher post. It is neither the pleaded case of the
respondents nor has any material been produced before this
Court to show that the appellants have not been discharging
the duties of the post of CDPO or the degree of their
responsibility is diferent from other CDPOs. Rather, they
 6 WP(S) No. 194 of 201

have tacitty admitted that the appellants are working as full.

fledged CDPOs since July 1999. Therefore, there is no legal
or other justification for denying them salary and
allowances of the post of CDPO on the pretext that they
have not been promoted in accordance with the Rules. The
convening of the Promotion Committee or taking other steps
for filling up the post of CDPO by promotion is not in the
control of the appellants. Therefore, they cannot be
penalised for the Government's failure to undertake the
exercise of making regular promotions."
Emphasis supplied
11
Upon going through the aforesaid judgment, it appears that the
Hon"ble Apex Court has taken note of the fact that if the in-charge
posting is a
Stop-gap arrangement or for a fixed period then the matter would have been
otherwise but certainly if a person has worked on in-charge
post for years
together; he would be entitled for difference of
salary.
12.
The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondent
State that it was an ad-hoc arrangenment
and tries to impress this Court Dy
drawing attention to the Annexure-6 series,
whereby the petitioner was given
ad hoc in-charge to discharge the work of
Deputy Director and Joint Director,
1S not acceptable to this Cout, as the
respondents have misunderstood the
very meaning of "ad hoc
arrangement", inasmuch as, this petitioner is
Working as in-charge Deputy Director from 31.12.2013
and Joint Director
from 5.2.2015 till his superannuation.
Even otherwise, this Court has earlier
taken a similar view in W.P.(S) No.6799
of 2018 and W.P.(S) No. 1661 of
2010 and recently by order dated 03.09.2021
passed in W.P.(S) No. 6618 of
2013.
13. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid
rules, guidelines and legal
propositions, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioner is entitled
for difference of salary from 31.12.2013
to 5.2.2015 when he was working as
in-charge Deputy Director (minus the benefits accrued on grant
of 2nd MACP
with effect from 20.5.2014) and from 5.2.2015
to 30.09.2021 wben he was
working as In-charge Joint Director. This is a typical
case where ad hoc
arrangement has continued for years together.
14
Consequently, the instant writ application is partly allowed. The
concerned respondent is directed to calculate the
difference of salary
31.12.2013 to 5.2.2015 when he was working as
in-charge Deputy Director
(minus the benefits accrued on grant of 2nd MACP
with effect from 20.5.2014)
 (18)
W.P.(S) No. 194 of 2021
and from 5.2.2015 to 30.09.202l
when he was working as In-charge
Director and pass an order of payment including Joint
benefits.
the consequential pensionery
1S.
I is made clear that since the matter is very
old as such, the
entire payment of difference of salary shall be paid to the
petitioner within a
period of l6 weeks fronm the date of receipt /production of copy of this
order,
failing which, the petitioner shall also be entitled for simple interest @
6% per
annum from the date of entitlement till the date of
payment.

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)

Rkr
 Azadi Ka
OFFICE OF THE Amrit Mahotsav
PRINNPAL.ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
(A&E) JHARKHAND, RANCHI
a r i r . 22/08/2025

aiG7-5- |383

No.570/2022 sdo qtr THT3

faq:- Cont (C)

TT S0O { T< #
fAi-12.08.2025
PR-5/2082281441/RREV/1600/2025-26/8881-8882

3qT FKI4TTY|
fddg Sr.Standing Counsel
4T: 4TT

G. sUS, Tt -834002 (SIRAUS) PO. Doranda, Ranchi -834 002 (Jharkhand)

HI9/ Telephone : 0651-2412942, 2412582, Fax : 0651-2411745
E-mail : [email protected]
 , feiE- J6T2

fei6-20.06.2025
yT T9OI YaiG uoso 3/3ta-1-2-146
HARA,

and others a< H fi-10.02.

of 2021 Surendra Prasad Vs. The State of Jharkhand
2022 oT H1is AINTUG G Y, et ERT YIRT 3TT Y Special Leave to
li4, fofi GRI
Appeal (Civil) No-24365/2023 HHG HITN HAa
fi-19.03.2025 * yRT T HtE frfty SIy0G-44(16) fi-08.07.

W.P (S) No-794 of2021 Surendra Prasad Vs. The State of Jharkhandand others

"As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and legal

propositions, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for
difference of salary from 31.12.2013 to S.02.2015 when he was working as in
charge Deputy Director (minus the benefits accrued on grant of 2nd MACP with
effect from 20.05.2014) and from 5.02.2015 to 30.09.2021 When he was working
as in-charge Joint Director. This is a typical case where ad h0c arrangement has
continued for years together.
Consequently, the instant writ application is partly allowed. The concerned
respondent is directed to calculate the difference of Salary 31.12.2013 to
5.2.2015 when he was working as in-charge Deputy Director (minus the
benefits accrued on grant of 2nd MACP with effect from 20.05.2014) and from
5.2.2015 to 30.09.2021 When he was working as In-charge Joint Director and
pass an order of payment including the consequential pensionary benefits.
It is made clear that since the matter is very old as such, the entire payment
of difference of salary shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of l6 weeks
 lon the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, failing which, 'The
|iloner shall also be entitled for simple interest (@ 6%. Per annum from the date
olentitlement till he date of payment." tu a
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No-24365/2023 HHGT
iNI 9iRT T¢NT FT ZR HIR HUC ART TUT , "In the facts and
Ccumstances of the Case (s), we are not inclined to
interfere with, impugned
jdgcment(s) passed by the High court. Hence, the
special leave Petitions are
dismissed.
implement the order passed by the High
we grant four weeks' time to the state to
Court.". HÊTis Ha
to Appeal (Civil) No-24365/2023 HIHÜI
Special Leave WP(S)No-794 of 2021
fiG-10.02.2022 T
Jharkhandand others q
Surendra Prasad Vs. The State of

Surendra PrasadVs. The State of

JT: 4RT f W.P (S) No-794 of 2021 IG-10.02.
AINguG G is, i t GRI
Jharkhand and others ql ý H4G
Y Special Leaye to Appeal (Civil) No-24365/2023
2022 yrT HT
39e).
fei- 20.05.2025 ERT HR HIG, HETYG Mr
fHTf yalo-64(16)

JO (6).

ib7-2s
 Ofice of the Pr. Accountant General (A& E), Jharkhand,Ranchi
*7th Pay Commission
PENSION REVISION ORDER ***IRST REVISION

Application No. 1$25210036 Date 12/08/2025

No. PR-S/2082281441/RREV/1600/2025-26/8881
Emoluments for DCRG
Emoluments for Fanmily Pension 192570/
Average Emoluments 143990/ 147000/
Last Pay Drawn Pay Scale LEVEL-13
147000/00/0/0
(Basic/DP/RPPNPA/GP)

To,
The District Treasury Officer,
DORANDA - 834 002
Surendra. Prasad, Retd. Asstt. Director
Subject:- Authority for Revised Pension to Shri/Smt./Kum.
(Revision on A/c of CHANGE IN PAY
holder of P.P.0. No. 112229800

Revised
Sir, arrange for the payment of
In inviting areference to P.P.O. No. 112229800 ,Iam to request you to
)plus relief
HUNDRED
73500/ SEVENTY THREE THOUSAND FIVE
Pen_ion (@r (? quoting this
Surendra. Prasad
thereon with effect from 01/10/2021" toShri/Smt./Kum. Petd .Asstt. Director

letter as an authority. Hemlata Devi

the Pensioner, Family Pension @7 73500/- pm may be paid to Shri/Smt./Kum
2. In the event of death of death of
from the date following the date of
husband/wife/son/daughter of Shri/Smt. Surendra.Prasad
Retd. Asstt. Director 44100/ per
01/09/2026 or for 7years whichever is earlier
and thereafter (@7.
Govt. ServantPensioner till
marriage*/ remarriage or attending the age* as
specified under Rules.
month. Fanily Pension will be payable till death or
whichever is earlier.
forwarding the original P.P.0. mentioned above.
3. Identification documents have already bcen sent to youu while
4. Pension already paid @ 54550/ plus relief may be adjusted.

122586622 for 34836/- is enclosed.

5. G.P.0. No.

out of his original Pension of which has now been revised

6. He/She has commuted
to ? .The effective date of Commutation may be verified from your records.
Please acknowledge the receipt and intimate that the necessary modifications have been made in both
the halves of the P.P.O.
7.

Asstt. Accountant General/

Sr. Accounts Officer/Accounts Officer

Memo. No. PR-S/2082281441/RREV/1600/2025-26/8881 Date 12/08/2025

Copy forwarded to i
1. Shri/Smt./Kum Surendra. Prasad Retd. Asstt. Director
AT- 305, GANPATIPALACE, SHUKLA COLONY, PHASE-II, AINQ0 PO+PS -DORANDA
DIST-.RANCHI,JHARKHAND,834002
He/She is advised tQ'contact the Tresury Officer to receive the payment.
2. UNDER SECRETARY,
HEALTH, MEDICAL
JHARKH¢ND -834 002EDUCATION&FAMILY WELFARE DEPTT., JHARKHAND, RANCHI
for informationand with reference to his letter No. 07 dated 17/07/2023
Enclosure: Service Book.
*Application for son/daughter. Asst. Accounts Oficer
 Officeof the Pr. Accountant General (A&E),Jharkhand, Ranchi
Application No. 1525210036 GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER
Payable after 30/09/2021 GPO No. 122586622
Under THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY SEVEN ONLY 12/08/2025
Date
No. PR-S/2082281441/RREV/1600/2025-26/8882
To,
The District Treasury Officer,
DORANDA -834 002
Retd. ASSTT. DIRECTOR
SHRI SURENDRA.PRASAD
Subject:- Payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of Shri/Smt./Kum.
holder of PP.O. No. 112229800
DORANDA asum o!
Sir, treasury/sub-treasury thereunder
lam to authorize you to arrange payment from your )tc
HUNDRED THIRTY SIX ONLY
34836 / (? THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND EIGHT
being Pensioner /Nominees / Surviving family
Shri/Smt./Kum. SHRI SURENDRA,PRASAD Retd. ASSTT. DIRECTOR

admissible under Central/Tharkhand Pension Rules,

after necessary adjustments.
members towards the amount of D.C.R.G, as 34836 /
nominees/ claimants (in equal share) of
Ihe amount represents the Gratuity payableto the following
SI. Name & Relationship Minor
SI. Name &Relationship Minor (Y/N) Subject to
No. (Y/N) No.
6 adjustment of
1. Provisional
7
2. Gratuity Paid /
8
3. Govt. Dues,
4.
9
5. 10. if any.
The shares of Minor (s) are payable to Shri/Smt./Kum.
being natural / de-facto guardian.
Provisional Gratuity ? 0/
The expenditure is debitable to Government of Jharkhand/ granted by Department has been adjusted
2071 Pension and other Retirement Benefits. 104 Gratuties.
Recovery Details Gratuity of? 1965164
SL. No. Amount (in) Head Reasons
previously paid has been adjusted
1.
2

Pension Rules is 2000000/

The amount of admissible D.C.R.G. under Central/Jharkhand
is withheld for
Retirement Gratuity of
The particulars regarding his/her/their identification are as per PPO No. 112229800
or he/she/they may be identified locally.
73500/ vide PPO. No. 112229800
He/She is also authorized Pension of
on DORANDA Treasury.
Asstt. Accountant General/
Sr. Accounts Oficer
12/08/2025
PR-5/2082281441/RREV/1600/2025-26/8882 Date
Memo No.

Copy forwarded for information and necessary actiotQ :

1. Shri/Smt./Kum. SHRI SURENDRA.PRASAD Retd. ASSTT, DIRECTOR
AT- 305, GANPATI PALACE, SHUKL HINOO PO+PS -DORANDA
DIST-.RANCHI, JHARKHAND -834002
He/She should appear before Treasury Officer to receive the payment. Ths withheld amount will be released on
receipt on NDC/LPC from the Department concerned and is subject to recovery, if any.
2 UNDER SECRETARY,
HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION &FAMILY WELFARE DEPTT., JHARKHAND, RANCHI
JHARKHAND - 834 002

Asstt. AccountsOfficer
 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) JHARKHAND, RANCHI
IMMEDIATE ENQUIRY SLIP OF PEN -V -TRANSIT HBA
TO BE RETURNEDWITH
QUERIES TO BE ANSWER BY GA MCA
DATED IN CONNECTION WITH THE REAPPORTION MMA
N OF THE TITLE TO PENSION ETC pwd
GOV.DUES
LPC

DB- 02.09.1961
DIJ-20,05.1994
DIR- 30.09.2021
A.A.O./ GE-03
The following information in respect of the officer named below jn connection
with the report on the titled pension etc. may please be furnished to this section. This may
please be sent to this section alongwith service book and other information, iffany.
ar
Asst. Accounts Officer/Pension-5
Name of the officer:-Dr. Surendra Prasad
Designation : Retd. Asstt. Director
1. Whether no demand /demand certificate from try -2, 3, 5, GA...15 section and from
E.E/ P.W.D. department have been received in your section, if so there may be amount
outstanding.
This may be specified.
2 Has L. P.C. duly countersigned by the department.
3. pay drawn during 10 months prior to the date of retirement ( sub-pay and officiation
pay in respec permanent post and sPL. Pay if any should be shown separately.
NOTE:- PLEASE MENTION AT LEAST LAST FOUR INCREMENT IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR
CALCULATING AVG. EMOLUMENTS.
PAY LEVALPAY SCALE
sub- pay
offig. pay
Personal pay /sPL. Pay
C.A.
4. Specify period passed under suspension interruption in service and during the period of
gazetted service.
Whether he is re-employed, if so the terms and conditions of re- employment.
6. Date of retirement: oi ho
7 Date of first commencement of government of service: 20 \9 9y
8 Date of promotion to be gazetted post:
9 Date of conformation in gazetted post:
10. Date of birth: 02oG 961 &PNR
11. Please intimate if any F/S, Suspehsioh
Whether service book of the officer in respect of non-gazetted period of his service is available
in your section. If available, the same may please io sent, if the service book is not available,
kindly intimate the letter no. and date under which it was returned to the depártment.

Audit no. Asstt. Accounts Officer/ Section Officer

 OFFICE OF THE Azadi Ka
PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ON) Amrit Mahotsav
(A&E) JHARKHAND, RANCHI

TaTs-sftoo-3-atuft--2.280
ftatr- D3 ]08/2025

tar,

4oy |
a 2022 ft E HIG qHI4 ATKqug HGT
t<qT:- IT Cont (C) No. 570

fT TT TRT sfaftt THT

ATIGY RGUE Tit dCont
(C) No. 570 q 2022 IYT

H-ftoso-3-tqfr--2- 269-272 fata 06.08.2025 Auf f+T TATI

a BTUã qfd
4T: AT4T ATUE fsÈo VHTG aRI
IT Cont (C) No. 570 q 2022
qt Sr. Standing Counsel rqTa ht $t F9T 6T |

. sRUSI, Tat - 834002 ($iIR{GqUS) P.O. Doranda, Ranchi - 834 002 (Jharkahnd)
HIY/Telphone :0651-2412942, 2412582, Fax : 0651-2411745
E-mail :[email protected]
 i. 108/2025

TiST 834002

H^RIY,
Ts Rs HIG, Haigi Hy MRI
f-ta- 27.01.2022
1 att(To)-01-16 12019 -15 (16)

faata- O /08/2025
JIÚE 0E- ioao-3-3at-1-2- 270 22

15 (16) fio- 27.01.2022 31

yz- HO Ho -16 / stqfà (TO) - 01-16/ 2019 -
 2/ /04/2025
gnfarr N-ftoto-3-3fuf-1-2- 24-31.

3tST 834002
fAi
(3tufe) 7 fai 03.02.2014
taT Mg, HZI4T AzurA

I-2.-29-3

1/025
T0s foa0-3-3gf-1-2
afafaftrayqTALATugqafta :

ift 834002 834002 H |

fais 17.04.2025 A119 HT vd qraa
egArA Tfrr zii 834001 34Tg* yais-53
r0RT- 16/ sie (s du)-06-03/2021 444 CI6)

Prasad Vs.
HA AIVqUg J a rciU. vit
W.P (S)No-794 of 2021 Surendra
The State of Jharkhand and othcrs R fh I |
Jharkhand and
No-794 of 2021 Surcndra Prasad Vs. The State of
W.P (S) ERI -10.02.2022 Ì 3GT
rgug yu ur
Others qTG

aforesaid rules, guidelines and

legal
"As a cumulative effcct of the entitled for
considered view that the petitioner
is
propositions, this court is of the working as in
difference of salary from 31.12.2013
to 5.02.2015 when he was with
Director (minus the benefits accrued on grant of 2nd MACP
charge Deputy 30.09.202 1When hc was working
effect from 20.05.2014)and from 5.02.2015 to has
Director. This is a typical case where ad hoc arrangement
as in-charge Joint
continued for years together.
Consequently,the instant writ application
is partly allowed. The concerned
5.2.2015
to calculate the difference of Salary 3 1.12.2013 to
respondent is directed benefits accrued
working as in-charge Deputy Director (minus the 5.2.2015 to
when he was
2nd MACP with effect from 20.05.2014) and from
on grant of order of
In-charge Joint Director and pass an
30.09.2021 When he was working as
pensionary bencfits.
payment including the consequentialmatter is very old as such, the entire payment
It is made clear that since the petitioner within aperiod of 16
wecks
salary shall be paid to the
of difference of order, failing which, The
date of receipt/production of copy of this
from the
entitled for simple interest @ 6%. Per annum from the date
petitioner shall also be
payment."
of entitlement till the date of fi-31.12.2013 RI Ì T yHIG, 30gfa frlercs,
faTfs 3ftya HO-141(16)
2.

Y yHK #yi
feii-05.03.2015 IN
3. faHrfs 3feyaI HO-11(16)

and others
No-794 of 2021 Surendra Prasad Vs. The Statc of Jharkhand
4. W.P.(S)
 l H u IRqVG JA RITGTU, vi) LP.A. No-280 of 2022 ThdStato
of Jhakband andothers Vs. Surendra Prasad GTUR fhsi u |
5. L.PA.No-280 of 2022 The State of JIharkhand and others Vs. Surendra Prasad IT

passed by the
"ln that view of the matter, we find no crror in the judgement devoid of
is dismissed being
leamed single Judge, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal
any merit."
No-280 of2022 The State ofJharkhand and others
Vs. Surendra Prasad HT4d
6. L.P.A.

T4 Hq| ygY, S SLP (Civil) Diary No-3053 1l of2023 The State

of Jharkhand and others Vs. Surendra Prasad 4R fh4I jU|
of 2023 The State of Jharkhand and
7. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No-30531
HiG-20.10,2023 yfr 31T HI14
others Vs. Surendra Prasad 4à À
Leave to Appeal (Civil)
Ha| IATG4, $ feceft gRI 9RgG H4 o Special
No.-11509 of 2023 HY HGG hr i fMGI fy f4T|
2023 The State of Jharkhand and
8. Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No-l1509 of les, 1S f ERI
others Vs. Lakhan Prasad Yaday 4 - 4 Hafg

inclined to interfere
"In the facts and circumstances of the Case (s), we are not
Hence, the special leave
with impugned judgement(s) passed by the High court.
Petitions are dismissed.
the High
we grant four weeks' time to the state to implement the order passed by
Court."
of Jharkhand and others
9. W.P (S) No-794 of 2021 Surendra Prasad Vs. The State

1.
f5-03.02.2014
PB-III, 1S600-39100 19.05.2014
PB-II, 9300-34800
GP-5400/ GP-7600/
t-03.02.2014
2. j-20.05.2014
PB-II, 15600-391 00 PB-II, I5600-39 100 05.02.2015

GP-6600/ GP-7600/
(iF-20.05.2014
MACP)
 3+

3.
PB-I, 15600-39100 fto-06 02.2015
PB-IV, 37400-67000 06.08.2019
GP-6600/ GP-8700/
fic5-05.02.2015
4
PB-l1, 1S600-39100 PB-IV, 37400-67000 30.09.2021
GP-6600/ GP-8700/

ctag-11 Idi-13

STI0S 16/3NT (até )-o6-03/2021 4U6)