2025:JHHC:25034 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 5722 of 2022 --------- 1. Bhoginath Mahto, Aged 51 years, son of Late Karil Mahto, resident of Village- Uchringa, PO: Palani, PS: Patratu, District- Ramgarh. 2. Torish Yadav, Aged 35 years, son of Late Biru Gope, resident of Village-Labga, PO: Gegda, PS: Basal, District- Ramgarh. 3. Amit Munda, Aged 42 years, son of Sri Khedan Munda, resident of Balkudra, PO: Gegda, PS: Basal, District- Ramgarh. 4. Sujeet Kumar, Aged 41 years, son of Sri Rana Suresh Prasad, resident of Katia, PO: Koto, PS: Patratu, District- Ramgarh. 5. Jamuna Ram, Aged 51 years, son of Ugar Ram, resident of Road No. 8, DAV Khatal, PO: PTPS, PS: Patratu, District- Ramgarh. 6. Harendra Mahto, Aged 36 years, son of Sri Sonar Mahto, resident of Rochap, PO: Terpa, PS: Patratu, District- Ramgarh. 7. Tulsi Prasad, Aged 41 years, son of Rameshwar Sao, resident of Resda, PO: Gegda, PS: Basal, District- Ramgarh. 8. Ganesh Mahto, Aged 47 years, son of Late Shyamlal Mahto, resident of Garewa Tand, PO: PTPS, PS: Patratu, District- Ramgarh. 9. Devendra Prasad, Aged 51 years, son of Sri Rajendra Prasad, resident of Panch Mandir Market, PO: PTPS, PS: Patratu, District- Ramgarh. 10. Binod Kumar Munda, Aged 39 years, son of Late Birsa Munda, resident of Kurbid, PO: Hathawa, PS: Patratu, District- Ramgarh. 11. Ashok Mahto, Aged 48 years, son of Late Lorka Mahto, resident of Garewa Tand, Palani, PO: PTPS, PS: Patratu, District- Ramgarh. 12. Arjun Prasad, Aged 51 years, son of Late Moti Lal Sudhanshu, resident of Bawandhara, Near Servicing Centre, PO & PS: Patratu, District- Ramgarh. ......Petitioners Versus 1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineering Building, HEC, PO & PS: Dhurwa, District- Ranchi through its Chairman- cum-Managing Director. 2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineering Building, HEC, PO & PS: Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 3. Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Engineering Building, HEC, PO & PS: Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 4. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Transmission Zone-5, Hazaribagh, PO, PS & District-Hazaribagh. 5. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Transmission Circle, Hazaribagh, PO, PS & 2025:JHHC:25034 2 District- Hazaribagh 6. Electrical Executive Engineer, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Transmission Division, Hazaribagh, PO, PS & District- Hazaribagh. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate For the Resp.-JUVNL : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate --------- 08/Dated:-14.08.2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for quashing the reasoned order as contained in Memo No.345 dated 09.07.2021 (Annexure-11) whereby the 4th respondent disposed of the representation of the petitioners’ directing payment to the petitioners through the concerned agencies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention towards the reasoned order and submits that simply detailed facts had been made that what amount the petitioners would be entitled to. He further draws attention of this Court towards Annexures-1 and 2 and submits that though as per the tripartite agreement, the agency was required to give minimum scale to these petitioners but they are not getting the same; as such, simply by saying that the petitioners are entitled and they would get relief from the concerned agency will not suffice the claim of the petitioners; as such, at least the respondent-JUVNL should ensure that the agencies which are their creature should act upon the agreement and pay the amount as mentioned in the 2025:JHHC:25034 3 agreement. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no writ can be issued to the contractor and even the contractors are not party to this application; as such, the petitioner should take alternative remedy of executing the agreement before the appropriate forum. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and looking to the prayer made in this writ application and the reasoned order and the agreement, it appears that detailed terms have been stipulated in the agreement with respect to the amount for which the petitioners would be entitled, but since the petitioners are not getting the amount of wages as per the tripartite agreement followed by several office orders, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for the aforesaid relief against the Contractor. 6. It goes without saying that neither the contractors/agencies who have been appointed by the respondent- JUVNL are party respondents; nor a writ of mandamus can be issued to the private respondents for implementing the terms and conditions of a contract. Needless to say, the respondent-JUVNL in its reasoned order has categorically not denied the claim of the petitioners; rather, their stand is that the payment shall be made by the respective contractors for which they have also issued certain letters to the respective contractors. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ 2025:JHHC:25034 4 application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-