Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

The State Of Jharkhand vs Ganesh Ram
2025 Latest Caselaw 6025 Jhar

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6025 Jhar
Judgement Date : 22 September, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand vs Ganesh Ram on 22 September, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
                                                2025:JHHC:29322-DB




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

             L.P.A. No. 355 of 2025
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government
of Jharkhand, At- Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S.-Doranda,
District-Ranchi.                    ...   ...  Appellants
                         Versus
1. Ganesh Ram, aged about 46 years, S/o. Shri Kali Ram, Resident of
Osho Enclave, Bariyatu, P.O. & P.O.- Bariyatu, District- Ranchi.
2. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.-Hinoo, P.S.-
Doranda, District- Ranchi.                 ...     Respondents
                         ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

---------

For the Appellants       : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-V
For the A.G.             : Mrs. Oishi Das, Advocate.
                         ---------
02/Dated: 22.09.2025
I.A. No. 4981 of 2025

1. For the reasons stated in this Interlocutory Application, which is

duly supported by an affidavit filed by the officer of the appellants, we

find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 194 days that has crept up

in filing the Appeal.

2. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay is condoned. This Interlocutory

Application stands disposed of.

3. We really wonder why the State has filed the instant appeal given

the fact that it was the State itself which is aggrieved that the issue

involved in the instant lis was squarely covered by the judgment

rendered by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6618 of 2013, case titled Chanda

Hembrom v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., wherein, this Court while

dealing with several judgments of different Courts allowed the prayer of

the petitioner therein, who like the writ petitioner (respondent herein) had

-1 of 3- 2025:JHHC:29322-DB

discharged the duties of Superintending Engineer with effect from

24.07.2007 till 16.09.2009 and the post of the Chief Engineer with effect

from 17.09.2009 till 26.11.2019, but was paid the scale of the Executive

Engineer without any annual increment or consequential benefits. The

appellants herein, had in fact not even disputed that the issue raised in

this case was squarely covered by the judgment in Chanda Hembrom

case (supra), as would be evident from paras 3 and 5 of the order

passed by the learned writ Court, which reads as under : -

"3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid fact and fairly submits that the issue involved in this case was already decided in the aforesaid case as such the instant case will be decided on the similar line after verification of record.

4. ...... .... ....

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the said order has been affirmed up till Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, the instant writ application is disposed of by directing the respondent no.2 to look into the matter and pass an appropriate order for payment of difference of salary for the period 24.07.2007 till 16.09.2009 (working as Superintending Engineer on in-charge basis) and for the period 17.09.2009 till 26.11.2019 (working as Chief Engineer on in-charge basis) and make payment thereof.

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order."

4. In such circumstances, obviously, the learned writ Court was

absolutely correct in directing the appellants herein, to look into the

matter and pass appropriate orders for payment of difference of salary

for the period 24.07.2007 till 16.09.2009 (when respondent No. 1 was

working as Superintending Engineer on in-charge basis) and for the

period from 17.09.2009 till 26.11.2019 (when respondent No. 1 was

-2 of 3- 2025:JHHC:29322-DB

working as the Chief Engineer on in-charge basis) and make payment

thereof along with all consequential benefits.

5. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is

dismissed. However, we need to clarify that this would be subject to the

appellants verifying the correctness and veracity of period so specified

by the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein).

6. Pending Application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

22.09.2025 N.A.F.R. APK/VK

-3 of 3-

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter