Kumod Kumar Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 7817 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Kumod Kumar Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 December, 2025

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1129 of 2024
                               ....

Kumod Kumar Thakur ...... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand

3.Mr. Sujit Mukherjee, Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand

4.Mr. Sanjay Kujur, Engineer-in-chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand

5.Mr. Dinesh Kumar Rajak, Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Daltonganj, Palamau.

6.Mr. Pradip Kumar, Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Garhwa, Government of Jharkhand ....... Opp. Parties

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L& C)-I ......

07/16.12.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. A show cause has been filed on behalf of the State by which the opposite parties have tendered unconditional apology and has stated that in light of the judgment dated 12.04.2024 passed in W. P. (S) No. 7051 of 2017 by this Court, the petitioner has been reinstated into service with effect from 13.11.2017 and the continuity of his service has been maintained and photocopy of Memo No. 4513(5) dated 01.12.2025 issued by Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department has been enclosed as Annexure-A to the Supplementary Affidavit dated 15.12.2025.

3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the writ petition has been allowed with the direction to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. However, till date consequential benefits has not been allowed and even the arrears of salary has not been paid and even other service benefits including ACP/MACP and Promotion have not been considered.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties prays for time to seek instruction and file further show cause in compliance of the judgment dated 12.04.2024 passed in W. P. (S) No. 7051 of 2017 by this Court.

5. Put up this case on 22.01.2026.

6. In the meantime, it is expected that the petitioner will get all the consequential benefits.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 16.12.2025 Kamlesh/