Nishi Viswakarma Wife Of Sri Ranjan ... vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1765 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Nishi Viswakarma Wife Of Sri Ranjan ... vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited ... on 16 January, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    W.P. (S) No. 5845 of 2014
          Nishi Viswakarma wife of Sri Ranjan Kumar Vishwakarma, resident of 405,
          Mathura Tower, near Old Bus Stand, P.O and P.S and District- Hazaribagh,
          Jharkhand.                                                  ...... Petitioners.
                                            Versus.
             1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing
                Director, having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
             2. The Secretary, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited having its office at
                Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
             3. The Joint Secretary, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, having its office
                at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
                                                                      ...... Respondent(s).
                                                   ------
                        CORAM        :      SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the petitioner(s): M/s Neeta Krishna, Ashok Kr. Sinha, Anshuman Kumar and Jay Shankar Tiwary, Advocate.

For the respondent(s): Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

-----

03/16.01.2025: During course of argument, it has been submitted by the counsel for the respondent(s) that the persons, who are exactly similarly situated and have suffered the rigor of the similar order, had approached this Court by filing writ petitions, but the same were dismissed and the reversion was upheld. Against the said order, those writ petitioners preferred Letters Patent Appeal being LPA Nos. 446, 459 and 460 of 2016, which were also dismissed vide order dated 15.3.2021 by a Division Bench of this Court.

2. It has also been submitted that the case of the petitioner stands on exactly similar footing as he is also from the same department and this petitioner also received the same benefits, which were received by the appellants of the said Letters Patent Appeals, which was ultimately reversed.

3. Counsel for the petitioner also admits the aforesaid fact.

4. Considering the said submission, I am of the opinion that this case on facts is squarely covered by the judgment/order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 446 of 2016 and its analogous cases.

5. Accordingly, this petition is also dismissed in terms of order passed in LPA No. 446 of 2016 and its analogous cases.

Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J. )