Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27043 (JHR)

PETER TIGGA v. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE CHAIRPERSONSHIP, MISSION VATSALYA

WPC/980/2025 · 2025-06-24

Rajesh Shankar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:16655-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 980 of 2025 1. Peter Tigga 2. Prabhakar Jha 3. Ranjit Kumar Mahato 4. Sarita Kumar 5. Ranjana Jha 6. Ramjivan Das 7. Shiv Sagar Das 8. Rajesh Kumar 9. Nand Kishor Mahato 10. Hublal Das 11. Azmat Fatima 12. Rekha Kumari 13. Vivek Kumar 14. Sita Kumari 15. Md. Mofiz Ansari 16. Aman Kumar 17. Rakesh Kumar Mishra @ Rakesh Misra 18. Urmila Mardi 19. Yudhishteer Paul @ Yadhishteer Paul 20. Sita Mardi 21. Mithun Mahato 22. Guddi Singh 23. Shekhar Prasad 24. Brajesh Yadav 25. Soni Kumari @ Soni Kumare 26. Rajesh Kumar Murmu 27. Bindeshwar Paswan 28. Hiran Nayak 29. Kaleshwar Oraon 30. Ananius Kiro @ Anunius Kiro 31. Arpan Ekka 32. Deepak Kindo 33. Alma Bela Toppo 34. Suman Teresa Lakra 35. Michael Ekka 36. Jagdish Sharma 37. Ranjit Kumar Choubey 38. Guleshwar Kumar 39. Meghnath Mahto 40. Punam Kumari 41. Maya Mishra 42. Upasana Verma @ Upashna Verma 43. Mukesh Mondal 44. Milan Bauri 45. Premlata Kisku 46. Subhash Hansda 47. Shashikant Singh 48. Anil Murmu 49. Sushil Soy 2025:JHHC:16655-DB 2 50. Loknath Bhandari 51. Dinenath Bhandari @ Dinanath Bhandari 52. Shakichand Kumar 53. Ramsahay Tuti 54. Basanti Mundu @ Bansanti Mundu 55. Achi Tuti 56. Saniyo Kongari 57. Junul Hemrom 58. Sunita Kumari 59. Lavkesh Kumar 60. Kumari Jyoti Sinha 61. Sachidanand Lakra 62. Shashi Kala Kujur 63. Nilam Kumari 64. Amit Singh 65. Wilson Tigga 66. Aditya Xalxo 67. Harendra Kumar @ Harendera Kumar 68. Hanuk Kachhap 69. Pankaj Kumar Yadav 70. Arti Kumari 71. Seema Biswas 72. Rishidev Mandal 73. Srinath Bandari @ Srinath Bhansari 74. Rajen Saha 75. Putul Kumari 76. Rajdeo Prasad Verma 77. Sandeep Kumar 78. Pradeep Kumar 79. Anuj Kumar 80. Raju Kumar 81. Bindu Devi 82. Pushpa Kumari 83. Vinita Kumari 84. Ravindra Goswami 85. Ravi Kumar 86. Umesh Kumar 87. Kamlesh Kumar 88. Puja Kumari 89. Mallika Dutta @ Malika Dutta 90. Prakash Mahto 91. Dilip Kumar 92. Tirthnath Mahto 93. Rahul Kumar Balmiki 94. Neha Kumari 95. Ranjit Toppo 96. Anwarul Haque 97. Neelima Kujur 98. Kiran Baxla 99. Puja Kumari 100. Binita Toppo 2025:JHHC:16655-DB 3 101. Divya Toppo 102. Archana Aind 103. Sushma Toppo 104. Manoj Sameer Toppo 105. Jyoti Toppo 106. Reshma Binha 107. Ravi Raj Tigga 108. Reshmi Kerketta 109. Manish Kumar Paswan 110. Bikash Kumar Daroga 111. Ram Chandra Singh Munda 112. Romani Hansda 113. Laxmi Murmu 114. Ajit Kabi 115. Brihaspati Mahato 116. Basanta Mahato 117. Sakhi Baraik 118. Manoj Kullu 119. Praful Kiro 120. Nitren Lugun 121. Ranjit Dung Dung 122. Pradeep Paul Ekka 123. Pradeep Kullu 124. Manita Bara 125. Anant Pradhan 126. Pankajini Devi 127. Pooja Nayak 128. Karmu Bodra 129. Manjula Pradhan 130. Om Karwa 131. Janaklata Gope … … Petitioners Versus 1. The Union of India, through its Chairpersonship, Mission Vatsalya Project Approval Board (PAB), P.O. & P.S.-Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi 2. The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Department of Women Child Development & Social Security, Ranchi 3. The Chairman, Jharkhand State Child Protection Society, Ranchi 4. The Director, Jharkhand State Child Protection Society, Ranchi 5. Deputy Secretary, Jharkhand State Child Protection Society, Ranchi 6. M/s Balaji Detective Force Man Power Provider, through its Director, Ranchi … … Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners: Mr. Anup Kr. Agrawal, Advocate For the Res.-U.O.I.: Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, C.G.C. ----- 2025:JHHC:16655-DB 4 03/24.06.2025 1. Since the petitioners are challenging in this writ petition the Standard Operating Procedures (SoP) of Mission Vatsalya Scheme notified on 31.03.2023 by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India for the purpose of 24x7 Child Helpline ‘1098’ service for children as defined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (as amended in 2021), and since the petitioners are unable to show any right vested in them to be employed as per the said scheme, and on merely harping on the fact that previously they were engaged in the said scheme, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. 2. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J) Satish/Vikas/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)