Jai Kumar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 576 Jhar

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          W.P.(S) No. 2756 of 2016
    1.    Jai Kumar Prasad.
    2.    Smt. Malati Devi @ Malati Kumari
    3.    Krishna Murari Prasad
    4.    Smt. Alopi Devi @ Alopi Kumari
    5.    Dr. Dular Thakur @ Dr. Dular Sharma @ Dr. Dular Hazam @ Dr.
          Dular Hajam.
    6.    Suresh Ram Dangi.
    7.    Ram Kishor Prasad.
    8.    Gobardhan Ram Dangi
    9.    Yashwant Rajak
    10. Dwarika Ram
    11. Dineshwar Prasad Dangi
    12. Ramchandra Mahto
    13. Ram Deo Dangi @ Ram Deo Kumar Dangi
    14. Arun Kumar Thakur
    15. Raghubir Ram Dangi
    16. Sukdeo Prasad Roy                       .... .... Petitioners
                              Versus
    1.    The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resources
          Development Department, Ranchi.
    2.    The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
          Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
    3.    The Director, Mass Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
                                                  .... .... Respondents
                              ------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK (Through Video Conferencing)

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhola Nath Rajak, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to S.C.-V

-----

8 / 21.02.2022 Heard the parties.

The petitioners have approached this Court for absorption of their services on Class-III post in the light of the judgments passed by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 8418 of 2010, as also the orders passed by this Court.

At the very outset, Bhola Nath Rajak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that let the petitioners move a representation before the authorities in the light of the observation made by the Hon'ble Patna High Court for similarly situated persons. He further states that if the petitioners move representation, decision shall be taken thereof sympathetically in accordance with law within four months thereafter.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State has no objection to it.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of with the direction that petitioners may move representation before the authorities seeking adjustment/absorption/ appointment in other departments in the light of the observations made by Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8418 of 2010. If such representation is moved within fifteen days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the authorities shall take decision therein within 90 days thereafter, in accordance with law. It goes without saying that considering the services rendered by the petitioners, authorities shall take sympathetic view so that petitioners may not be left to starve.

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

R.Kr.