SULEN MAHTO v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND SUGARCANE DEVELOPMENT DEPT
WPC/2992/2025 · 2025-08-11
Sri Ananda Sen
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17853 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17853 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:22895
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2992 of 2025 ------ Sulen Mahto, aged about 45 years, son of Late Balo Mahatwain, Ex- Sweeper (V.C. Cell, BAU, Kanke, Ranchi), Resident of Nadi Kinare, Garu Bhagalpur, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, Dist.-Ranchi.
… … Petitioner(s) Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at Nepal House P.O. & P.S. – Doranda District- Ranchi.
2. Birsa Agriculture University, through its Vice-Chancellor, Kanke, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, Dist.- Ranchi.
3. The Registrar, Birsa Agricultural University, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, Dist.- Ranchi.
4. The Director Administration, Birsa Agricultural University, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, Dist.- Ranchi.
… … Respondent(s) ------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------
For the petitioner : Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate
Mrs. Shobha Rani, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
Mr. Amartya Choubey, Advocate
------ 02/ 11.08.2025
1.
Heard the parties.
2.
The prayer of petitioner in the writ petition is as under:-
“i. For direction upon the respondents to confirm the services of the petitioner in regular pay scale w.e.f. 06.04.2015 in V.C. Cell, B.A.U., Kanke Ranchi in place of his mother namely Late Balo Mahatwain, Ex-Sweeper in V.C. Cell who died on 22.07.2013, during pendency of her service and the petitioner was appointed as casual worker (Casual Peon) in place of his mother in connection of compassionate appointment on 06.04.2015 pursuant to office order/letter no.54 dated 06.04.2015 issued by respondent No.4 similarly situated persons have been given benefits in regular pay scale where as petitioner’s service is being taken as casual employee since 06.04.2015. ii. For direction upon the respondents to pay the arear in regular pay scale and consequential benefits to the petitioner since his date of appointment i.e. on 06.04.2015 for the post of peon with interest. iii. For direction upon the respondents to confirm the services of the petitioner in permanent nature in the scale of 5,200 to 20,200/- pursuant to order dated 20.02.2013
2025:JHHC:22895
2
whereas in case of petitioner in lieu of permanent confirmation in regular pay scale as per said order the concern authorities is still taking services as casual employee and the petitioner is getting only Rs.10,162/- per month only. iv. For direction upon the respondents to confirm the services of the petitioner in regular pay scale w.e.f. 06.04.2015 as similarly situated person namely Rakesh Kumar has been given benefit pursuant to order passed by Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in W.P.(S) No.5083/2024 by
order dated 12.09.2024 wherein service of the Rakesh Kumar has been confirmed in permanent nature as well as in regular pay scale.
3.
It is a case of the petitioner that he was appointed on compassionate ground but as he was non-matric, he was appointed as casual employee. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner should have been appointment in permanent vacancy in a permanent post with the scale and not as a casual employee. It is his contention that he is working since 06.04.2015 and even after lapse of 10 years, his services have not been confirmed. Lastly, he submits that he has filed a representation along with similarly situated person whose case has been considered in W.P.(S) No.5083/2024. Suffice it would be, as per the petitioner, if a direction is given respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as per law and pass a reasoned order.
4.
Learned counsel for the State had no objection regarding the same.
5.
Considering the said submission, I direct the petitioner to file a detailed representation before respondent No.2 who will consider the case of the petitioner and will pass an appropriate
order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and if the grievance of the petitioner is found to be genuine, necessary consequential order be also issued within a further period of 4 weeks.
6.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) Sandeep, cp3