Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Ganesh Chandra Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 August, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:24327
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.38 of 2025
-----
Dr. Ganesh Chandra Sinha, S/o Late Bihuti Chandra Sinha, R/O 11 New Barganda
K.C. Dey Road, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, Dist.- Giridih
.... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Principal Secretary, Dept. of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House,
Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi
3.The Secretary Dept. of Health Medical Education & Family Welfare, Govt. of
Jharkhand Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi
4.Joint Secretary, Department of Health Medical Education & Family Welfare Govt.
of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi
5.Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist.-
Ranchi
... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Kumar No.1, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C. (Mines)-III
Mr. Faisal Allam, AC to S.C. (Mines)-III
.........
05/ 20.08.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
2. The issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit
which he has claimed i.e. D.A.C.P., has already been decided by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.86 of 2018 (Dr.
Shyam Sundar Singh & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others),
which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also. Thus, by virtue
of the said judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioner is entitled
for the benefit of the D.A.C.P.
3. The claim of the petitioner was not considered by the State only
on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the Letters Patent
Appeal or the writ petition and it is the contention of the State that
only the person, who are party to the litigation are entitled for
receiving the same benefit.
4. In my opinion the ground taken by the State is illogical. When in
principle an entitlement of group of persons has already been decided,
it is immaterial as to who are the person who were appearing before
the Court in the litigation. Benefit of the policy decision should be
granted to all even if they are not a party to the litigation. This will
avoid unnecessary litigation also. The similarly situated persons who
even if have not appeared before the Court, are entitled for the same
service benefits. Further, the State does not deny that the petitioner
falls in the said category. Thus, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for
the benefit of D.A.C.P., if he is otherwise eligible as his name is also
appearing in the list in Annexure-1, which contains the name of the
persons, who are entitled for the D.A.C.P. benefit.
5. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am inclined to allow this writ
petition. The decision in L.P.A. No.86 of 2018 will be made applicable
to this petitioner and to other similarly situated employees.
6. The respondents will take appropriate steps, so that the payment
can be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt a
copy of this order.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
R.S./
