KRISHN KUMAR vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:26912

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4826 of 2026
Krishn Kumar, aged about 46 years, son of Bhuneshwar Prajapati, resident
of ‘Manju Niwas’, Behind of Ramgarh College, Village Murramkala, P.O.
and P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, PIN 829122 (Jharkhand)
…… Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand,
having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Town Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa,
P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi-834004 (Jharkhand).
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms &
Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, Town Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa & P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi-
834004 (Jharkhand). …… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate
Ms. Sakshi Kathuria, Advocate
Ms. Sejal Agrawal, Advocate

For the Resp.-State : Ms. Oishi Das, A.C. to A.G.
CAV On: 01.09.2026 PRONOUNCED On :07.09.2026


1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been filed by Petitioner for following
reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction including Writ of
Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner and
consequently grant promotion to him on the post of Junior Selection Grade
equivalent to Under Secretary from the date when Petitioner’s Batch-mates
have been granted promotion, especially because persons similarly situated
with that of Petitioner including his juniors have been granted promotion to the
said post and the case of the Petitioner has not been considered merely because
pendency of Departmental Proceeding against the Petitioner.
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of
Mandamus directing Respondent-State of Jharkhand to consider and
consequently grant promotion to the Petitioner on the post of Additional
Collector equivalent to Deputy Secretary from the date when Petitioner’s
Batch-mates have been granted promotion, especially because persons
similarly situated with that of Petitioner including his juniors have been
granted promotion to the said post and the case of the Petitioner has not been
considered merely because pendency of Departmental Proceeding against the
Petitioner.
(iii) For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction, including writ of declaration,
declaring that action of Respondent-authorities in not considering the case of
Petitioner with effect from the date when the Batch-mates of Petitioner have
been granted promotion is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India especially because promotion of the Petitioner cannot be withheld on the
ground of alleged Departmental Proceeding and/or criminal case pending
against Petitioner.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was appointed as
rd
Deputy Collector pursuant to 3 Joint Civil Services Competitive
1

2026:JHHC:26912

Examination held by Jharkhand Public Service Commission vide
Notification dated 11.08.2010 and he submitted joining on 12.08.2010.
After training, first posting of the Petitioner was on the post of Circle
Officer, Nagri where Petitioner joined on 02.05.2011. Earlier, Nagri area
was falling within the Block of Ratu and a new Circle i.e. Nagri
Anchal/Circle was constituted on 31.01.2011 and most of relevant
records from Ratu Block to Nagri Circle were not transferred at the
relevant time when Petitioner was posted in Nagri Circle.
4. While Petitioner was posted as Circle Officer, Nagri Circle,
allegation was leveled against him regarding excess mutation of 4.11
decimal of land in Khata No. 89, Plot No. 773 being done by him and
sole basis of allegation was that Seller of the land gave Power of
Attorney of lesser quantity of land, but the Power of Attorney holder
sold 4.11 decimals of land in excess than what was convened in the
Power of Attorney.
5. In fact, the Seller was one Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and a
C.B.I. case was registered against the said company being R.C. Case No.
04(S)/2014-Ranchi dated 28.02.2014. In the said case, report was
submitted by C.B.I. dated 21.12.2016 wherein recommendation was
made for initiating departmental proceeding against Petitioner. It is
pursuant to said recommendation, departmental proceeding was initiated
against Petitioner vide Resolution dated 20.11.2018, wherein charges
leveled against Petitioner was regarding mutation of land of 4.11
decimals in Khata No. 89, Plot No. 733, Circle Nagri which was the land
2

2026:JHHC:26912

sold in excess by Power of Attorney holder than what was convened by
original owner of land.
In the Charge-sheet in Form ‘Ka’ it was stated that one Arvind
Singh of Sanjeevani Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was given Power of Attorney of
only 41.24 decimal of land, but said person sold 45.36 decimal of land of
Plot No. 733. However, in the Charge-sheet itself, it was mentioned that
total area of Plot No. 733 was 59.58 decimal.
6. In the departmental proceeding, one Shri Binod Chandra Jha,
Retd. I.A.S. was appointed as Inquiry Officer and Additional Collector,
Ranchi was appointed as Presenting Officer. Petitioner has annexed the
report submitted by Additional Collector, Ranchi (Presenting Officer),
contained in Letter No. 5232(ii) dated 11.10.2022, wherein Presenting
Officer itself clarified that Circle Officer had no role and could not have
ascertained and determined that excess land was sold by Power of
Attorney holder than land convened by land owner. Thus, Presenting
Officer itself did not support the charges leveled against Petitioner, and,
Petitioner specifically pleaded that, to the best of his knowledge, Inquiry
Officer submitted its report exonerating the Petitioner from all charges,
but, as yet departmental proceeding against Petitioner has neither been
dropped; nor any Show Cause Notice has been issued by Respondent-
State differing with the Enquiry report.
7. Petitioner further pleaded that apart from aforesaid allegation
of allegedly carrying out mutation of excess land, three criminal cases
were initiated against the Petitioner and in all the three criminal cases,
3

2026:JHHC:26912

charge-sheets have already been submitted vide Charge-sheet No.
13/2013 dated 31.12.2013, Charge-sheet No. 10/2014 dated 30.06.2014
and Charge-sheet No. 13/2014 dated 30.09.2014.
8. Petitioner specifically pleaded that persons similarly situated
with that of the Petitioner, including Juniors in the rank of seniority of
rd
the Batch of the Petitioner i.e. 3 Batch of Combined Civil Services
examination, have been granted promotion vide Notification No. 3539
dated 08.06.2022 to the post of Junior Selection Grade, equivalent to
Under Secretary in Pay Matrix-11; and even Batch-mates of the
Petitioner, including Batch-mates who are junior in seniority to the
Petitioner have been further granted promotion vide Notification bearing
Memo No. 6541 dated 04.10.2024 to next level of promotional post i.e.
Additional Collector rank, equivalent to Deputy Secretary, in Pay
Matrix-12.
9. Petitioner has even annexed Notification, wherein persons
belonging to subsequent batch of Combined Civil Services Examination
have been granted two promotions i.e. promotion to ‘Junior Selection
Grade’ and promotion in ‘Additional Collector’ rank, vide Notification
dated 30.12.2023 and Notification dated 16.05.2025 respectively.
10. It is the case of Petitioner that Departmental proceeding is
pending against Petitioner since the year 2018 and criminal cases are
pending against Petitioner since the year 2013-14 and the case of the
Petitioner has been considered for promotion, but, has been kept in
‘Sealed Cover’ by Departmental Promotion Committee.
4

2026:JHHC:26912

11. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon Resolution No.
6227 dated 20.11.2008 issued by State of Jharkhand following the
Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Union of India &
Ors vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors., reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 , and it
has been submitted that in aforesaid Resolution itself it is clearly
provided that if the case of an employee for promotion is kept in ‘Sealed
Cover’ for more than two years, the said employee is entitled for Ad-hoc
promotion with effect from the date when juniors to said employee were
granted promotion on next higher promotional avenue. On the strength
of above fact, present writ application has been filed by Petitioner.
12. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by Respondent-State of
Jharkhand, wherein at Para-11, it is admitted that the case of Petitioner
was considered by Departmental Promotion Committee and, upon
consideration due to pendency of Departmental proceeding and/or
Criminal proceedings against Petitioner, the recommendation/finding of
D.P.C. was kept in ‘Sealed Cover’.
13. Respondents also relied upon the Guidelines dated 20.11.2008
which prescribes the procedure of ‘Sealed Cover’ to be adopted. Apart
from above, in the Counter Affidavit, plea is taken that as per Letter No.
2423 dated 16.03.2015, Government servants are obligated to provide a
return of their movable and immovable property and in absence of such
return/details being provided, the case of an employee cannot be
considered for promotion.
5

2026:JHHC:26912

It has been submitted that Petitioner failed to provide such
return/details and is, thus, otherwise ineligible for opening of the ‘Sealed
Cover’; as Petitioner is disqualified for promotion.
14. Rejoinder Affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Petitioner,
wherein Petitioner has annexed Screenshot of Online Portal of
Respondent-State of Jharkhand to demonstrate that Petitioner filed
Returns for financial years 2022, 2023 and 2025 containing details of his
movable and immovable property.
15. Heard Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate assisted by Ms.
Sakshi Kathuria, Advocate appearing on behalf of Petitioner and Ms.
Oishi Das, A.C. to A.G. appearing on behalf of Respondents. Both the
counsels placed reliance upon Resolution dated 20.11.2018 which is
framed by State of Jharkhand pursuant to Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of ‘K.V. Jankiraman & Ors.’ and learned Advocate of
Petitioner has taken a plea that in terms of the said Judgment and
Resolution, Petitioner is entitled for Ad-hoc promotion with effect from
the date when his batch-mates have been granted promotion, subject to
final outcome of the Departmental and Criminal proceedings.
16. Per contra , counsel for Respondent-State submitted that
‘Sealed Cover’ procedure is required to be continued as Departmental
and Criminal proceedings are still pending against Petitioner.
17. Upon hearing the parties and upon careful examination of
Resolution No. 6227 dated 20.11.2008 and the Judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of ‘K.V. Jankiraman & Ors.’, I am of the opinion
6

2026:JHHC:26912

that Petitioner is entitled for Ad-hoc promotion with effect from the date
when his batch-mates have been promoted to promotional posts, with all
consequential benefits of seniority, revision in pay, etc. except payment
of differential salary.
18. A bare perusal of Resolution dated 20.11.2018 (Annexure-11)
would itself reveal that although said Resolution provides for keeping in
‘Sealed Cover’ the decision of Departmental Promotion Committee, but,
said Resolution further provides that if promotion of an employee is kept
in ‘Sealed Cover’ and if criminal/ departmental proceedings are not
completed within a period of two years, said employee will be granted
Ad-hoc promotion after considering following factors, namely:-
(a) Whether grant of promotion to a Government servant would be
against public interest?

(b) Whether allegation against Government servant is of such a grave
nature that his case is not to be considered for promotion?
(c) Whether in near future criminal or departmental proceeding is
likely to be concluded?
(d) Whether if Ad-hoc promotion is given to an employee, he is likely to
mis-utilize his position which affects departmental and/or criminal
proceeding?
19. In the present case, Respondents in their Counter affidavit
have mentioned about meetings of Departmental Promotion Committee
held on various occasions, but has not pleaded that case of Petitioner for
Ad-hoc promotion was not considered by Departmental Promotion
Committee due to existence of any of the above four factors mentioned
in the Resolution.
On the contrary, it has been pleaded that Petitioner has not
filed his returns of movable and immovable property and has, thus,
become ineligible for grant of promotion. However, Online Screenshot
7

2026:JHHC:26912

of Respondent-Portal reflecting filing of returns by Petitioner for
financial years 2022, 2023 and 2025, has not been disputed.
20. In fact, Resolution dated 20.11.2018 clearly provides for grant
of Ad-hoc promotion to Petitioner with effect from the date when
similarly situated employees to Petitioner have been granted promotion.
However, arrear of salary, etc. can be paid to Petitioner only if,
ultimately, Petitioner is exonerated in departmental/criminal
proceedings; and in the opinion of Respondent-Department, Petitioner is
entitled for arrear of salary.
21. In the present case, Petitioner specifically pleaded that
departmental proceeding was initiated against Petitioner in the year 2018
and even Presenting Officer gave report in favour of Petitioner and, to
the best of the knowledge of Petitioner, Inquiry Officer has also
exonerated the Petitioner from all charges. Said specific pleading has not
been denied in the Counter Affidavit and departmental proceeding has
been kept pending against Petitioner for more than 8 years without
passing any final order.
22. In fact, I have also perused two separate reports given by
Presenting Officer (Annexue-5 and Annexure-6 to Writ Petition). A
perusal of said reports clearly demonstrates that total area of Plot No.
773 was 53.76 decimal and Petitioner has not carried out mutation
beyond the total area of the Plot. In the said reports, it has been clearly
stated that Petitioner, as Circle Officer, cannot have any knowledge
about the fact that Power of Attorney holder sold land in excess than
8

2026:JHHC:26912

what was convened to him in Power of Attorney. Aforesaid reports are
not denied in the Counter Affidavit, but it is surprising that despite such
reports of Presenting Officer, Petitioner’s departmental proceeding is
kept pending.
Even otherwise, if Circle Officer has carried out mutation
which is not in excess to the land recorded in the name of the owner in
Records of Right, the Circle Officer cannot be said to have acted
contrary to provisions of Bihar Tenant Holdings (Maintenance of
Record) Act, 1972.
23. Inaction and/or latches on the part of Respondents has led to
standstill of Petitioner’s professional career and future avenue, and,
Petitioner would be, otherwise, forced to work under his Juniors.
24. In Union of India v. Tantia Constructions Pvt. Ltd. , (2011) 5
SCC 697, at paragraph-33, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that
injustice, whenever and wherever it takes place, has to be struck down as
an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of Constitution of
India.
25. Keeping in mind the constitutional obligation of the
government to act as model employer which is consistent with their role
in a welfare state, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, under the extraordinary power, deems it appropriate to direct the
Respondents to grant Ad-hoc promotion to Petitioner on the post of
Junior Selection Grade equivalent to Under Secretary with effect from
08.06.2022 in Pay Matrix-11 i.e. the date when batch-mates including
9

2026:JHHC:26912

persons junior in seniority of the same batch, have been granted
promotion to aforesaid post with all consequential benefits of seniority
and revision in pay-scale, except payment of differential salary.
26. Respondents are further directed to grant Ad-hoc promotion to
Petitioner with effect from 04.10.2024 in Pay Matrix-12 i.e. from the
date when his batch-mates including junior in Seniority List of the same
batch have been granted promotion to the post of Additional Collector,
equivalent to Deputy Secretary, with all consequential benefits of
seniority and revision in pay-scale, except payment of differential salary.
27. The State of Jharkhand would further take decision on the
issue of payment of arrear salary to Petitioner in the next higher level
promotional avenue, after culmination of departmental/criminal
proceedings against Petitioner.
28. Aforesaid exercise of grant of Ad-hoc promotion with all
consequential benefit, except of payment of arrears of salary, shall be
completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of this
order.
29. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Pending I.A., if any,
shall stand disposed of and there shall be no order as to costs.


(Deepak Roshan, J)
Dated:07/09/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R.
Uploaded on
8.9.2026

10