ROBIN AJAY SINGH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:31970
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S) No. 2835 of 2026
1. Robin Ajay Singh, aged about 49 years, son of Shri D.
Francis Singh, resident of House No.82-B, Anantpur, P.O.-
Doranda, P.S.-Chutia, District-Ranchi.
2. Pankaj Kumar, aged about 41 years, son of Shri Hira Mani
Sahu, resident of Road No.3, Rajnagar, Power House Lane,
Chutia, P.O. & P.S.-Chutia, District-Ranchi.
3. Sandeep Kumar, aged about 54 years, son of Shri Ram
Krishna Prasad Sinha, resident of Near Shiv Temple,
Nilanchal Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad.
…… Petitioner
V E R S U S
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project
Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and District-
Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House,

Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-. Doranda, Town and District-Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House,
Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Town and District-Ranchi.
4. The Under Secretary to Government, Water Resources
Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, Town &
District-Ranchi.
5. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House,
Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Town and District-Ranchi.
…… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
….…
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Mrs. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Priyadarshi, G.P.-VI
Mr. Uttam Kr. Das, A.C. to G.P.-VI
….…..

C.A.V. ON: 27/10/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:02/11/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition with a
prayer to quash Memo No.234 dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure-11)
1

2026:JHHC:31970
issued by the Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Government of Jharkhand whereby the claim of the petitioners
pursuant to order dated 24.09.2025 passed by this Court in
W.P.(s) No.4179 of 2019 has been rejected.
3. The petitioners have further prayed for promotion from
the post of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) to the post of
Executive Engineers (Mechanical) after granting them promotion
in the post of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) with effect from
November, 2012. Consequential benefits have also been sought
for by the petitioners.

4. The facts as disclosed in the writ petition are that the
petitioners were appointed on the post of Junior Engineers
(Mechanical) against the sanctioned and vacant post in the pay
scale of 5000-8000 on 13.11.2007. The petitioners were
thereafter given appropriate posting on the post of Junior
Engineers (Mechanical). On 01.09.2009, Government issued
Resolution to consider the cases of promotion from the post of
Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineers with respect
to those who secured higher qualification while in service. The
petitioners completed 5 years, which is Kalawadhi for promotion
from the post of Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant
Engineers. Since there were vacancies available and the
petitioners completed Kalawadhi with degree of AMIE, the
2

2026:JHHC:31970
petitioners submitted representation for promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineers.
5. As per the petitioners, the promotion should have been
granted to them as they were eligible but since such request was
not acceded to, the petitioners were constrained to file a writ
petition, being W.P.(s) No.4182 of 2014 which was disposed of on
10.11.2016. Thereafter the petitioners were promoted from the
post of Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineers on
20.11.2018.
6. The contention of the petitioners is that they should
have been granted promotion with effect from November, 2012,
as they became eligible and there were sanctioned and vacant
posts available for such promotion. The petitioners have further
pleaded that they are AMIE Degree holders and joined the service
in the year 2007 on the post of Junior Engineers (Mechanical);
accordingly, they were entitled for promotion on completion of 5
years of their services with effect from November, 2012.

7. The stand of the petitioners is that the delay which was
caused on the part of the respondents may not be a ground to
deny promotion from the relevant date. Since the case of the
petitioners were not considered for promotion with effect from
November, 2012, the petitioners were again constrained to knock
the door of this Court by filing W.P.(s) No.4179 of 2019 which was
disposed of on 24.09.2025, directing the Secretary of the
3

2026:JHHC:31970
Department to verify the records and pass an reasoned and
speaking order and give consequential benefits within a period of
16 weeks.

8. The petitioners thereafter approached for compliance of
the order but the claim of the petitioners for promotion from the
post of Junior Engineers to post of Assistant Engineers with
effect from November, 2012 was rejected on 19.01.2026 on the
ground that there was a CBI Enquiry pending; that by
Notification dated 12.04.2016, Jharkhand Engineering Service
Appointment Rules, 2016 came into effect; and that retrospective
promotion was not permissible in the light of Rule 58 of
Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of Jharkhand Finance
Rules.
9. It has been further pleaded that on 20.11.2008 itself a
Circular was issued by the State of Jharkhand as to under what
circumstance a person may not be entitled for promotion. It has
been brought on record that there was a Resolution dated
07.03.2022 whereby the said 2016 Rule was directed to be kept
in abeyance.
10. By filing counter affidavit, the State-respondent
contends that it is true that W.P.(s) No.4179 of 2009 was
preferred and the same was disposed of with a direction to take
appropriate decision within 16 weeks. In compliance of the order,
the petitioners submitted representation.
4

2026:JHHC:31970
11. It has been contended that the services of the petitioners
were not confirmed because of the CBI Enquiry. However, the
services were confirmed by Notification dated 20.10.2016 and
20.03.2017 (Annexure-B and B/1). Jharkhand Engineering
Service Appointment Rules, 2016 was notified on 12.04.2016, as
per which the petitioners were not entitled for such promotion.
12. The petitioners, however, were granted promotion from
the post of Junior Engineers (Mechanical) to the post of Assistant
Engineers (Mechanical) on 20.11.2018. As per Rule 58 of the
Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Finance
Rules, the petitioners are not entitled for retrospective promotion
and therefore the reasoned order was passed on 19.01.2026.
13. Mr. Manoj Tandon, Ld. Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the order impugned dated 19.01.2026
by the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of
Jharkhand is neither sustainable in law nor on facts. He submits
that the case of the petitioners has been rejected on three
grounds. Firstly, on the ground that there was a CBI Enquiry
pending; Secondly, that Rules, 2016 came into effect as per
which the petitioners were not entitled; and Thirdly that Rule 58
of Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of Jharkhand Finance
Rule, do not permit retrospective promotion.
14. To demolish the first ground, Mr. Tandon refers
Resolution No.6227 dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure-12 of the writ
5

2026:JHHC:31970
petition). As per this Resolution promotion can be withheld only
in a case where an employee is put under suspension; there is a
departmental proceeding pending in which memo of charge has
been framed; or if there is a criminal case pending in which
charge sheet has been submitted.
Mr. Tandon submits that neither the petitioners were
under suspension in the month of November, 2012; nor there
was any departmental proceeding or criminal case pending in
which memo of charge or charge sheet has been submitted. He
specifically contended that there was no F.I.R. even lodged
against the petitioners in the month of November, 2012 or even
thereafter. Therefore, Ld. Counsel submits that the first ground
of rejection is a non est ground in the eye of the law.
15. To demolish the second ground, Ld. Counsel submitted
that admittedly 2016 Rules were notified on 12.04.2016 and the
same has not been given retrospective effect. He further submits
that the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Assistant
Engineers was due on or around 20.11.2012 and on that day the
said Rule was not in vogue.
In this view of the matter, he submits that Rule, 2016
may not be an impediment in the case of the petitioners.
16. As far as the third ground is concerned, learned Counsel
for the petitioners submits that Rule 58 of Jharkhand Service
Code and Rule 74 of Jharkhand Finance Rules will not apply in
6

2026:JHHC:31970
the case of the petitioners, as the delay was caused on the part
of the respondents-employer. If the petitioners were entitled and
the sanctioned and vacant posts were available but the same was
delayed at the hands of respondents and the promotion was
granted only in the year 2018, the petitioners are not responsible
for the same. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that the
third ground is also not sustainable in the eye of the law.
17. On the contrary Mr. Priyaddarshi, Ld. Counsel
appearing for the respondent-State defends the impugned
reasoned order dated 19.01.2026. He submits that since CBI
Enquiry was pending, the 2016 Rule was notified on 12.04.2016,
and Rule 58 of Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of
Jharkhand Finance Rule do not permit retrospective promotion,
accordingly, the impugned decision was taken.
18. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the
State that since the case of the petitioners have been considered
and rejected, this court may not interfere.

19. In view of the facts of the present case, this Court is of
the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed
for the following facts and reasons: -
(a) The first ground on which the case of the petitioners
has been rejected is that there was a CBI enquiry pending.
It appears that some preliminary enquiry (PE) must be
pending against the petitioners with the CBI. But nothing
has been brought on record by the respondents that any
charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners.
7

2026:JHHC:31970
In fact, it appears that there was no F.I.R. lodged
against the petitioners, as was submitted by the learned
Counsel for the petitioners.
In view of the fact that there was no F.I.R. coupled
with the fact that there was no charge sheet at all
submitted against the petitioners in the criminal case, the
case of the petitioners cannot be rejected on this count.
Further, there is nothing on record that there was any
memo of charge framed to initiate a departmental
proceeding against the petitioners.
It has rightly been pointed out by Ld. Counsel
appearing for the petitioners that in the year 2008 itself,
Government of Jharkhand issued a Resolution/Circular
dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure-12 of the writ petition)
whereby the promotion of an employee could be withheld
only in a case where (i) an employee is put under
suspension, (ii) if charge has been framed in a departmental
proceeding; and (iii) if a criminal case has been lodged in
which charge sheet has been submitted . This circular is too
clear on this point. In view of this Circular, the case of the
petitioners could not have been rejected by the respondent
concerned.
(b) The case of the petitioners has been rejected also on
the ground that Jharkhand Engineering Service
was notified on 12.04.2016 as
Appointment Rules, 2016
per which the petitioners were not entitled for such
promotion.
This ground is also fallacious in view of the fact that
no Rule could be given retrospective effect. In fact, this
Rule was never issued with retrospective effect. The
promotion of the petitioners to the post of Assistant
Engineers was due on 20.11.2012 itself. On 20.11.2012
this 2016 Rules was not in effect. Therefore, the claim of
the petitioners cannot be rejected on the ground of a Rule
which was framed after 4 years from the date the
petitioners were entitled to as per their seniority and the
8

2026:JHHC:31970
vacancy position. Rejection of the promotion of the
petitioners on this ground is absolutely arbitrary.
(c) Reference has also been made to Rule 58 of
Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand
Finance Rules to reject the claim.
In this context, this Court holds that these Rules
cannot be an impediment to grant promotion to an
employee who was entitled to promotion but the delay was
caused at the hands of the respondents. It is well settled a
law that if the delay is caused on the part of the
respondents, the Court under Article 226 is not powerless
to direct the respondents to grant promotion with
retrospective effect.
The Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case
of Dr. Parasnath Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar,
reported in 1990 (2) PLJR 248 held that if the person
who is entitled to promotion, but not promoted, is entitled
to invoke writ jurisdiction. Rule 58 of Bihar (now
Jharkhand) Service Code was specifically dealt with in
paragraph no.19. It was further held that withholding
promotion and denying other benefits was nothing but
grave injustice to the employee. In fact, the Division Bench
compensated by directing payment of interest @15%
compoundable per annum on the benefits (salary and
other allowances) to which the petitioner was entitled.
This Division Bench judgement in the case of Dr.
Parasnath Prasad (supra) has been followed in the case of
Satyendra Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand , reported in
2021 (2) JLJR 195 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
and the same was upheld in L.P.A. No.274 of 2021,
decided on 26.04.2022.
There are several judgments on this point including
Satya Dev Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand , reported in
2010 (3) JLJR 238 (Jhar) , 2000 (1) PLJR 768 which was
followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Gauri Shankar Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand ,
9

2026:JHHC:31970
decided on 13.11.2017 and the same was upheld in L.P.A.
No.264 of 2018, decided on 11.12.2023.
Therefore, this Court holds that Rule 58 of
Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of Jharkhand Finance
Rule will not be an impediment in the case of the
petitioners as there is no fault on the part of the petitioners
and the matter was delayed for no reason by the
respondents only.
(d) The respondents have not denied that these
petitioners were entitled for promotion in the month of
November, 2012. The grounds taken to reject the claim of
the petitioners are nothing but lame excuses. It is well
neigh settled that right of consideration of an employee for
promotion is a fundamental right. The fundamental right
of the petitioners for consideration in the month of
November, 2012 was violated by the respondents in the
present case. All the grounds as stated above, do not come
in the way of the petitioners for promotion from due date.

20. In view of what has been held above, the impugned
decision in the shape of reasoned order dated 19.01.2026
(Annexure-11), is hereby, quashed and set aside.
21. The respondents are accordingly directed to promote the
petitioners from post of Junior Engineers (Mechanical) to the
post of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) with effect from
20.11.2012 with all consequential benefits.
22. Consequently, after granting the promotion to the
petitioners from 20.11.2012, their cases are also required to be
considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers with
10

2026:JHHC:31970
effect from the date the petitioners complete the Kalawadhi , as
per applicable Rules.
23. Formal order to the aforesaid effect be issued within a
period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy
of this order.
24. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated: 02 /11/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R
Uploaded on
03.11.2026




11