The State Of Jharkhand vs Yogendra Kumar Pandit
2026 Latest Caselaw 163 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand vs Yogendra Kumar Pandit on 12 January, 2026

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                                 2026:JHHC:947-DB



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              LPA No. 671 of 2023
                                    ------

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. + P.S. Doranda, Ranchi.

3. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. + P.S. Doranda, Ranchi.

4. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. + P.S. Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

... Appellants Versus

1. Yogendra Kumar Pandit, son of Late Rajendra Prasad, Resident of Flat No. 304, F.N. Gauri Tower, Tharpakhna, P.O. Tharpakhna, P.S. Lalpur, District- Ranchi.

2. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, A.G. Colony, P.O. + P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

------

For the Appellants : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II

------

08/Dated: 12th January, 2026

I.A. No. 10924 of 2023:

1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel-II for the

State-applicants/appellants.

2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 193 days in

instituting an appeal against learned Single Judge's order dated

03.05.2023.

3. The reasons stated in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the interim application are the

usual reasons which inspire no confidence whatsoever. Para-4 vaguely

states that the matter was considered by the department, and it was

decided to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. Para-5 states that

matter was put up for approval before the competent authority on

15.06.2023 and after the competent authority granted its approval on the

2026:JHHC:947-DB

same day, the matter was sent to the learned Advocate General to

approve filing of the appeal on 19.06.2023. Para-6 states that the file was

sent to the retainer of the department for preparing grounds of appeal,

and thereafter the file was transferred to the counsel for preparing the

memo of appeal. This appeal memo was drafted and sent to the

department for approval; upon approval, the appeal was filed on 30th

November 2023.

4. The application is blissfully vague, and crucial dates have been omitted.

One of the grounds stated is that the delay was due to procedural

technicalities, and it was not deliberate. The second is that the appellants

are Government functionaries having several layers, and this "consumes

much time". Finally, the application stated that "important questions of

law and facts are involved in this appeal" and the appellants have a good

case and every chance to succeed in this appeal.

5. Regarding the above grounds, we note that this is a matter in which a

penalty of a 2% cut in the pension has been awarded against the

respondent-employee.

6. This Court, in its judgment and order dated 1 st December 2025,

disposing of L.P.A. No. 725 of 2023, in similar circumstances, found

fault with the State's action primarily because the notice issued to the

delinquent employee was issued with a closed mind and there was pre-

judgment of the issues. There is no significant difference between the

two cases. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that

this decision was delivered on 1st December, 2025, i.e., after the

institution of the present petition and the application for condonation of

2026:JHHC:947-DB

delay.

7. On cumulative consideration of all the above circumstances, we do not

think that sufficient cause has been shown in this matter to condone the

delay of 193 days. Even otherwise, we find that the respondent has

already superannuated on 30.11.2014; therefore, the prejudice to the

respondent, if we were taking a liberal view in this matter, would far

exceed the prejudice, if any, that will occasion to the State. The

impugned order has merely directed the State to pay the respondent 2%

of the pension which was deducted. Possibly, on the ground of pendency

of this appeal, the direction issued by the Learned single judge is still not

complied with by the appellant State. This would have aggravated the

prejudice to the senior citizen who, after a long battle, secured

restoration of 2% cut in his pension.

8. For all the above reasons, we dismiss this application. Consequently, the

accompanying appeal also stands dismissed.

(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

12th January, 2026 Birendra/Samarth