Raj Kishore Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2955 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Raj Kishore Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 April, 2026

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                            2026:JHHC:10324

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Contempt Case (Civil) No. 733 of 2025

        Raj Kishore Mahto, S/o Late Niranjan Mahto, R/o Village-Sumandih,
        PO-Budhadih, PS-Bundu, District-Ranchi        ...    ...    Petitioner
                                        Versus
        1. The State of Jharkhand
        2. Shri Shashi Prakash Singh, Director, Primary Education, Human
           Resources Development Department, Department of School
           Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Project
           Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi
        3. Shri Badal Raj, District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi
                                               ...      ... Opposite Parties
        CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                                    -----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Altaf Hussain, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, AC to SC-V

-----

04/10.04.2026 The present contempt petition has been filed for

initiating a contempt proceeding against the contemnors/opposite

parties alleging wilful violation of the order dated 14.05.2024

passed in W.P.(S) No. 4146 of 2019.

2. Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, AC to SC-V appearing on

behalf of the opposite parties, refers to the order as contained in

memo no. 360/vidhi dated 17.07.2025 passed by the opposite party

no. 2 (Annexure-A to the show cause affidavit dated 05.08.2025)

and submits that vide said order, the date of appointment of the

petitioner for the purpose of pensionary benefits has been counted

from 16.04.1982. It is thus submitted that the aforesaid order of

this Court has been complied.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite

passing of the order dated 17.07.2025 by the opposite party no. 2,

the revised pensionary benefits have not been extended to the

petitioner.

2026:JHHC:10324

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

considering that the opposite party no. 2 has already passed the

reasoned order treating the petitioner's date of appointment with

effect from 16.04.1982 for the purpose of grant of pensionary

benefits, I see no reason to further proceed in the contempt

petition. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties is

hereby dropped.

5. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

6. It is, however, observed that if the petitioner is not

extended the revised pensionary benefits in terms with the order

dated 17.07.2025 passed by the opposite party no. 2 within six

weeks, he shall be at liberty to prefer a fresh contempt application.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

April 10, 2026 Manish

Uploaded on 10.04.2026