Jharkhand High Court
Indra Nath Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 27 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 162 of 2023
------
Indra Nath Kumar, son of late Kusum Kumar, resident of Village-Kolghati, P.O.
Kolghati, P.S. & District Hazaribag.
Presently posted as Cook, Hazaribagh Jail Training Institute, P.O.
Reformatory School, P.S. & District Hazaribagh ..... ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
4. The Inspector General of Prison, Govt. of Jharkhand, Jail Inspectorate
Jharkhand, Engineers Hostel, Gol Chakar, Ranchi
5. The Principal, Jail Training Institute, Hazaribagh, Hazaribagh
..... ..... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC (Mines)-III
------
04/27.02.2023: The petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction upon the
respondents to grant the ACP and MACP benefits to him with statutory and
penal rate of interest.
2. Counsel for the petitioner takes this Court through the judgment
passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Gope
& Ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. passed in WP(S) No. 4817 of
2012, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the
case of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Mahendra Gope & Ors. passed
in LPA No. 506 of 2009 and the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Mahendra Gope & Ors.
passed in Special Leave to Appeal No. 6111 of 2022 in which parties are on
the similar footing to that of this petitioners. He further submits that in respect
of similarly situated person, the order has been complied with but the
petitioner has not been given the same benefits. As per him, suffice it would
be if a direction is given to the petitioner to approach the respondent No.4
who will consider the case of this petitioner and pass a reasoned order.
3. Counsel for the respondents submits that if the case of the
petitioner is on similar footing to that of the person in whose favour the
judgment has been passed by this Court in the case of Mahendra Gope &
Ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors., an appropriate order will be passed.
4. Considering the said submission, I direct the petitioner to
approach the respondent No.4 by filing representation within four weeks. The
respondent No.4 will consider the case of the petitioner and if it is found that
the case of the petitioner is on similar footing to those petitioners who have
been granted the benefits pursuant to the order passed in WP(S) No. 4817 of
2012, the petitioner would be extended the same benefits. If the claim of the
petitioner is turn down, the reasons thereof should be communicated to him.
The entire process should be concluded within 12 weeks from the date of
receipt of the representation.
5. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the instant writ
application is disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Madhav/-
