2025:JHHC:12824 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 507 of 2017 --------- (I) Vaidehi Singh, w/o of Late Shivendra Kumar Singh; (II) Swati Kumari, D/o Late Shivendra Kumar Singh; All R/o S-4, DRDADC Office, Sakchi, P.O. Bistpur, Kalimati, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. ......Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District -Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Commissioner, Kolhan Division, P.O. and P.S.-Chaibasa, District - West Singhbhum. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, P.O. and P.S.- Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum. 5. District Rural Development Agency, East Singhbhum through its Chairman, Office at DRDA Building, at Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum. 6. Director, Accounts, Administration and Self Employment, District Rural Development Agency, East Singhbhum, Office at DRDA Building, at Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A.-I For the Respondents : Mr. Dhanajay Kr. Dubey, Advocate --------- 18/Dated:-28.04.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by erstwhile petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to issue appropriate order of regular appointment of the erstwhile petitioner as directed by the Respondent No.2 in view of the order passed in L.P.A. No.67 of 2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2025:JHHC:12824 2 erstwhile petitioner was an employee of the Respondent No. 4 however, in spite of working years together, he was not regularized and during pendency of this writ application, he expired and pursuant thereto, his widow as well as his daughter have been substituted in his place; as such, the instant writ application may be disposed of by granting liberty to the present petitioners to approach the concerned respondent with a limited prayer to the effect that whatever monetary benefit is lying in the name of her deceased husband/father shall be paid to them. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made in the instant writ application with regard to regularization and submits that now no order can be passed for regularizing a person who has already expired; as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid factual scenario, since the original petitioner has died and has been substituted by the present petitioners, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the present petitioners to approach the Respondent No.2 with regard to their claim. The moment the respondent No.2 will receive the representation of the present petitioners; he shall look into the matter and pass an appropriate order with regard to payment of such benefit which is standing in the name of the deceased employee. 6. After passing the order, any such amount for which 2025:JHHC:12824 3 the present petitioners would be entitled, shall be paid to them and the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-