Jharkhand High Court
Md. Kudus vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 October, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:30818-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 277 of 2023
Md. Kudus, aged about 62 years, Son of Late Emaman Miyan, Resident
of-Sakrogarh, P.O.-Sahibganj, P.S.-Sahibganj (T), District-Sahibganj
(Jharkhand). ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principle Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. The Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government
of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi.
4. The Principle Secretary, Personal and Administrative Reforms
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
5. The Secretary Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, Project Buliding, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
6. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, Office located at
Collectorate Office Building, P.O. & P.S.-Sahibganj, District-Sahibganj,
Jharkhand.
7. The Establishment Deputy Collector, Sahibganj, Office located at
Collectorate Building, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S.-Sahibganj, District-
Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
8. The Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency,
Sahibganj, Office at Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. and District-Sahibganj,
Jharkhand
9. The Deputy Commissioner-Cum-Chairman, District Rural
Development Agency, Sahibganj, Office at Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. and
District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
... ... ... Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 356 of 2023
Moula Paswan, aged about 60 years, Son of Late Jagdish Paswan,
Resident of - Sakrogarh (Gas) P.O.-Sahibganj, P.S.-Borio (J), District-
Sahibganj (Jharkhand) ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
-1 of 4-
2025:JHHC:30818-DB
2. The Principle Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
3. The Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government
of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi.
4. The Principle Secretary, Personal & Administrative Reforms
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, office at Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi.
5. The Secretary Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, Project Buliding, Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa,
District Ranchi.
6. The Deputy Commissioner, at Sahibganj, Collectorate Office, P.O.
& P.S.-Sahibganj, District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
7. The Establishment Deputy Collector Sahibganj, Office located at
Collectorate, Building, Sahibganj, P.O. Sahibganj, District-Sahibganj,
Jharkhand.
8. The Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency,
Sahibganj, office at Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. and District-Sahibganj,
Jharkhand.
9. The Deputy Commissioner-Cum-Chairman, Rural Development
Agency, Sahibganj, Office at Sahibganj, P.0. & P.S. and District-
Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. Shubham Kataruka, Advocate
For the Resp-State: Mr. Abhijeet Anand, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I
Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I
---------
18/Dated: 06.10.2025
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. (Oral)
I.A. No. 7472 of 2023 in L.P.A. No. 356 of 2023
1. For the reasons stated in the Interlocutory Application, which is duly
supported by an affidavit of the appellant, we find sufficient cause to
condone the delay of 99 days that has crept up in filing the Letters Patent
Appeal.
-2 of 4-
2025:JHHC:30818-DB
2. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay is condoned. This Interlocutory
Application stands disposed of.
L.P.A. No. 277 of 2023 with L.P.A. No. 356 of 2023
3. The appellant(s), who were the writ petitioners, approached this
Court with a common prayer, seeking direction to the respondents to treat
them as Government employees having State Government Cadre with all
consequential benefits in light of Resolution No. 4916 dated 07.09.2005
as available to the Government employees and not to treat them as
employees of the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA). The writ
petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the learned writ Court
constraining the writ petitioners to file the present appeals.
4. On 29.07.2025, the Court after hearing the arguments passed the
following orders:-
"1. We have gone through the record of the case and found that
as many as 70 Extension Officers (Industries and Commerce) and
18 Statistical Investigators working in different DRDAs in the State
were absorbed by the State Government with effect from the date
of issuance of its notification dated 17.02.2011, then why the writ
petitioner has been singled out is not forthcoming.
2. Confronted with this, learned counsel for the respondent
prays for a week's time to obtain instruction.
3. List on 12.08.2025."
5. In compliance of the aforesaid orders, respondent Nos. 6 to 9 have
filed the supplementary counter affidavit which goes to indicate that the
case of the petitioners does not fall within the purview of Resolution No.
4916 dated 07.09.2005 as none of the petitioners was working on the
post of Statistical Investigator/Extension Officer in the District Rural
Development Agency, Sahibganj and the writ petitions itself clearly
stipulate that the same shall be applicable only in the cases of Statistical
-3 of 4-
2025:JHHC:30818-DB
Investigators/Extension Officers working in the District Rural Development
Agency. Obviously, when the petitioners/appellants rely upon the
aforesaid resolution and the cases do not fall within the said resolution,
then no fault can be found with the judgment rendered by the learned writ
Court which has categorically held, the resolution to be applicable only to
the cases of the Statistical Investigators/Extension Officers.
6. The further contention of the appellants that since the
Drivers/Peons who were also Class-IV employees like the Statistical
Investigators/Extension Officers and therefore, the resolution to be made
applicable to their cases also, to say the least the argument is fallacious
apart from the merit list merely because Driver/Peon fall in the Class-IV,
the resolution which is based upon certain deliberations and is outcome of
such deliberations cannot be made applicable to the petitioners that too
by the Court only on the premise that they belong to the Class-IV like
Statistical Investigators/Extension Officers. The job profile and
requirements are required to be seen by the employer and it is not for the
Court to substitute its wisdom for that of the employer.
7. Having said so, we find no merit in these appeals and the same are
accordingly, dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Applications stands
disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
06.10.2025
N.A.F.R.
APK/VK.
-4 of 4-
