Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21946 (JHR)

BRAJ BHUSHAN PRASAD v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

WPC/4443/2025 · 2025-08-27

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:25583 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.4443 of 2025 ------ Braj Bhushan Prasad, S/o late Matun Ram, presently posted as Upper Division Clerk, Dairy Development Office, Pakur, R/o Maa Durga Colony, Raj High School Road, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. The Director, Dairy Development Directorate, Jharkhand, Farmers Training Centre Campus, Sector-2, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. The District Dairy Development Officer, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Kr. Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Omiya Anusha, AC to AAG-IA ------ 02/ 27.08.2025 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for confirmation of service. 3. As claimed, the petitioner is working since 22.07.1994, as Upper Division Clerk on ad hoc basis. He claims that his appointment was made after due process of law. His service book has already been opened and his GPF account has also been opened. He is getting regular pay in the scale and the same has also been revised in terms of the recommendation of the 6th and 7th Pay Revision Commission. It is his case that only his services have not yet been confirmed. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that 2025:JHHC:25583 2 services of similarly situated persons namely Tarun Kanta Topno, Veena Gupta, Bal Govind Mahli, Sunil Kumar Rajak, Om Prakash, Judagi Choudhary, Kuber Kushwaha, and others have already been confirmed in the same department. He lastly submits that he has already filed representation before respondent Nos.3 & 4, but no action has been taken. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondent – State submits that if the petitioner files a fresh representation before respondent No.3 - Director, Dairy Development Directorate, Jharkhand, bringing on record all the documents which the petitioner is relying upon, his case will be considered as per law and if it is found that the case of the petitioner is similarly situated to the others, appropriate order will be passed. 6. Considering the aforesaid submission, I direct the petitioner to file a representation along with relevant documents before respondent No.3 - Director, Dairy Development Directorate, Jharkhand, within four weeks. 7. If such representation is filed, the concerned respondent will consider the case of the petitioner and will decide the same within a period of six weeks. 8. If the petitioner is found entitled to, the claim of the petitioner should be extended to him within four weeks thereafter. 9. If any part of the claim / representation is rejected, a reasoned order should be communicated to the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-2