2026:JHHC:13564 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 425 of 2019 Narendra Kumar Verma, aged about 59 years, son of Late Lakshmi Prasad Verma, residing at Harmu Housing Colony, Post Argora, Police Station Argora, District Ranchi ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1 The State of Jharkhand; 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi officiating from Nepal House, Post Doranda, Police Station Doranda, District Ranchi 3. The Engineer-in-Chief-1, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi officiating from Nepal House, Post Doranda, Police Station Doranda, District Ranchi ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to GP-II -------- Order No. 10 /Dated: 5th May 2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1. ....for issuance of an appropriate writ/ Rule/ Direction particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 2150 dated 20.7.2018 (Annexure-7)) passed by the Engineer-in-Chief-1, Water Resources Department, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for getting promoted to the post of Junior Engineer from the post of Accounts Clerk has been found non-sustainable in the eye of law and hence has been rejected. And for a further direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion/absorption to the post of Junior Engineer with effect from 2008 with all consequential benefits as he has obtained Diploma in Civil Engineering which is the requisite qualification for the promotion to the post of Junior Engineer and moreso several other similarly situated employees like the petitioner have been promoted and the case of the petitioner was also forwarded for the same. And for any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he confines his entire argument solely on the question of parity, inasmuch as, the case of the petitioner is same and similar with Rathu Ram Mahto who was the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 4170 of 2003 and the said case was 2026:JHHC:13564 2 allowed by this Court and since case of the present petitioner is same and similar with that of Rathu Ram Mahto as such, his case may be considered on the same line. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though counter affidavit has been filed and stand has been taken that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit as prayed in this writ application; however, if the petitioner so chooses to approach the concerned respondent to see the limited prayer as to whether the case of this petitioner is same and similar with that of Rathu Ram Mahto, who was petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 4170 of 2003, then he may approach the 3rd Respondent. 4. Having regard to the limited submission, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the 3rd Respondent by filing fresh representation only on the ground of parity within a period of six weeks from today and the 3rd Respondent shall look into the matter. If the case of this petitioner is same and similar with that of Rathu Ram Mahto who was the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 4170 of 2003; the 3rd Respondent shall pass an order. If the order is passed in favour of the petitioner, necessary consequential benefits shall be paid to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of such representations. 5. The instant writ application stands disposed of. 6. Pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 5th May 2026 Amit Uploaded on 15/05 /2026