SHASHI BHUSHAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY DEPARTMENT
WPC/1015/2026 · 2026-02-16
Sri Ananda Sen
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 13844 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 13844 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:4712 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No.1015 of 2026
-----
1. Shashi Bhushan Singh, aged about 63 years, Son of Late Yogendra Singh, Resident of At H. No.45, Subhash Nagar (Dayal City Road), Chhota Govindpur P.O.-Gadra, P.S.-Pursudih, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 2. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, aged about 61 years, Son of Sadanand Singh, Resident of At Qtr. No.206/2/1, Chhota Govindpur, P.O.- GH Colony (Chhota Govindpur), P.S.-Govindpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 3. Pramila Kumari, aged about 61 years, wife of Raghunath Mishra, Resident of At Qtr. No. 122, New Layout, Sitaramdera, P.O.-Agrico, P.S.-Sitaramdera, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 4. Pushpa Kullu, aged about 66 years, wife of Robert Bilung, Resident of Village-Byangbil, P.O.+ P.S.-Sundernagar, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 5. Rathindra Nath Bhakat, aged about 66 years, Son of Late Madhu Sudhan Bhakat, Resident of Village-Kokda, P.O.- Asanboni, P.S.-Jadugora, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 6. Krishna Chakraborty, aged about 64 years, Son of Late Niren Sunder, Resident of At Kitadih, P.O.-Kitadih, P.S.-Pursudih, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 7.Surendra Kumar, aged about 64 years, Son of Late Hari Singh, Resident of village-Ramadhin Bagan, P.O.-Telko Warks, P.S.- Telko, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 8. Shashi Kumari, aged about 64 years, Wife of Tarkeshwar Dubey, Resident of At-Kachahari Mohalla, Goushala Nala Road, Jugsalai, P.O.&P.S.-Jugsalai, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 9. Satyabrata Pardhan, aged about 61 years, Son of Ramanand Pardhan, Resident of At-Tiringtipa, P.O.-Amda, P.S.-Kharsawan, District-Seraikela- Kharsawan, Jharkhand. 10. Prabir Kumar Shaw, aged about 61 years, Son of Dinanath Shaw, Resident of At-Bend, P.O.-Bend, P.S.-Chkulia, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 11. Basant Narayan Singh, aged about 61 years, Son of Late Chandeshwri Singh, Resident of Village-Chota Govindpur, LIG 6/6, Jameshedpur, P.O. & P.S.- Chhotagovindpur, Jamshedpur District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 12. Goretti Dungdung, aged about 66 years, Son of Henry Kullo, Resident of House No. 419, Hesag, P.O. & P.S.-Hesag, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioner(s). Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2026:JHHC:4712 2
2. The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Regional Joint Director of Education/ Regional Deputy Director of Education(R.D.D.E.), Kolhan Division, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 4. The District Education officer (D.E.O.), East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S.-Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 5.
The District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E), East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S.-Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 6. The District Treasury Officer, East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S.- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 7.The Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Respondent(s).
CORAM :
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lalit Kr. Singh, Advocate
Ms. Saba Ali, Advocate For the State
: Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, AC to GA-V For Accountant General: Mrs. Vandana Singh, Advocate
Ms. Aliza, Advocate …......
02 /16.02.2026: In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: (i) for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the concerned respondent authorities to consider the case/ representations of the petitioners in respect of revision of the scale of pay sanctioned and given to them by way of provisions of Assured Career Progression (ACP) / pay-up-gradation as Rs. 5000-150-8000 w.e.f 18.09.2003 (1st ACP) whereas petitioners are eligible and entitled for the scale of pay of Rs. 5500-175-9000 in place of 5000-150-8000 as per clause 2(3) of resolution contained in memo no. 5207/F dated 14.08.2002 r/w resolution contained in Memo No. 288/F dated 05.06.2007 and resolution contained in Memo No. 636/F dated 08.03.2007 in this regard. (ii) for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondent authorities regarding making the payment of all consequential benefits which accrue after the revision of scale of pay of Rs. 5500-175-9000 as 1st ACP/pay up-gradation wef 18.09.2003 in this regard.
And/ or Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
2026:JHHC:4712 3
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as their representation is already pending before the respondents, suffice it would be, if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners.
3.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that if the petitioners files fresh representation before the respondent no. 2-the Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, their case will be considered.
4. Considering the submission of the parties, I direct the petitioners to file fresh representation before the respondent no. 2- the Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department who will consider the case of the petitioners.
5. The representation should be filed within four weeks and the decision should be taken within six weeks thereafter.
6. If it is found that the petitioners are entitled for any monetary benefits the same should be extended to the petitioners within four weeks. If the claim of the petitioners is rejected for any reasons whatsoever the reasons should be communicated to the petitioners within the aforesaid period.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) 16.02.2026 Tanuj/CP-2
Uploaded on 21.02.2026