1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.984 of 2025 ----- Silvanus Kerketta, aged about 74 years, son of late Lukas Kerketta, resident of Khaman Toli, PO Gotra, PS Simdega, District Simdega, State Jharkhand … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District Ranchi. … Respondents. CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhanajay Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, AC to GA-V …...... 02 /27.02.2025: Heard, Mr. Dhanajay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner, in this writ application has prayed for following reliefs:- (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) /order(s)/direction(s), in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of benefit of first and second Assured Career Progression after completion of more than twenty-seven years of regular service in view of the notification issued vide Memo No. 1509 dated 16.06.2016, as contained in Annexure-3, with all consequential benefits; (b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) /order(s) /direction(s), directing the respondents to revise the pensionary benefits after grant of first and second Assured Career Progression since the petitioner has retired from the service with effect from 30.09.2010 and pay the arrears of the same with interest for which the petitioner is very much entitled under the law. 3. It is grievance of the petitioner that though the similarly situated persons have been extended the benefit of first and second A.C.P. but the petitioner has been deprived of the same. It is submitted that he has furnished all the necessary documents 2 for considering his case but the matter has not progressed any further from the end of the respondents. 4. Considering the aforesaid submission, Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that if petitioner files a fresh representation before respondent No.2, his case will be considered and if necessary, the same will be placed before the Committee for consideration. 5. Considering the submission of the parties, I direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation within a period of four weeks before respondent No.2. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent No.2 will consider the claim of the petitioner and if necessary, will place the same before a Committee who will consider the same and will pass a reasoned order provided that the petitioner produces all the necessary documents. 6. It is made clear that the documents which are in custody of the respondents and supposed to be in the custody of the respondents will not be called for from the petitioner. The entire process should be concluded within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. If, the claim of the petitioner is allowed, the necessary consequential benefit should be extended to him within two weeks from passing of the order. If, the claim of the petitioner is rejected, the reasons thereof should be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/