2025:JHHC:13162 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1982 of 2025 --------- Amar Sahu, Aged about 41 Yrs, son of Shri Ramnarayan Sahu, Resident of Village- Porha, P.O.-Rerwa, P.S.-Sisai, Dist- Gumla (Jharkhand). ....Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi (Jharkhand). 3. Deputy Commissioner-Cum- District Magistrate, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. - Gumla, Dist.- Gumla (Jharkhand). ....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vishnu Kumar Mahto, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Varsha Ramsisaria, A.C. to G.P.-V --------- 02/Dated: 29.04.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: i) For Setting aside the order dated 28.12.2024 vide Memo No. 759 (ii) by the Respondent No. 3 the Deputy Commissioner- Cum- District Magistrate, Gumla (Annexure-5) in which the concerned Respondent terminated the contract of the Petitioner by taking plea that Smt. Sugiya Devi (Mukhiya) and her husband Moti Oraon misappropriated the government money under the scheme of "Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna-Gramin (PMAY-G)". ii) For, commanding upon Respondents especially upon the Respondent No. 3 the Deputy Commissioner-Cum- District Magistrate, Gumla with regard to continuation of contract Service of the Petitioner as he has been illegally terminated from his service vide order dated 28.12.2024. (iii) For, direction upon the respondents for reinstatement of the petitioner into the same contract vide memo No. 1503 (ii) dated 08.9.2017 with all consequential due; 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation is pending before the 2025:JHHC:13162 2 Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Jharkhand; as such, he may be permitted to approach before him and pursue his representation. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not have any objection. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submission and the statement made in Paragraph-15 of the writ application, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to press his representation before the Commissioner. It goes without saying that since the representation is pending; the said Officer shall deal with the representation and decide the issue in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-