2026:JHHC:4388 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5128 of 2014 Lallan Prasad Singh, S/o Late Riseshwar Singh, Village and PO- Bhakharaun More, PS-Daudnagar District-Aurangabad (Bihar) -824113 ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building, HEC, P.O- Dhurwa, P.S-Jagnathpur, Ranchi-4 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. 2 Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building, HEC, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S- Jagnathpur, Ranchi-4 3.Director (Finance), Jharkhand Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building, HEC, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S- Jagnathpur, Ranchi-4 4. General Manager (HR & Adm.), Jharkhand Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building, HEC, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagnathpur, Ranchi - 4 5.General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Dumka, P.O. & P.S.-Dumka, District-Dumka ... … Respondent(s) With W.P.(S) No. 2770 of 2020 Lalan Prasad Singh aged about 73 years S/O Late Riseshwar Singh r/o Village- Bhakhruwo More PO- Bhakhruwo More PS-Daudnagar Dist- Aurangabad (Bihar) ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1.Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Chairman officiating at Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C. Township, P.O.& P.S. Jaggnathpur Dist. Ranchi. 2 The Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C. Township, P.O.& PS. Jaggnathpur Dist. Ranchi. 3. Dy General Manager (Personnel), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C. Township, P.O.& PS Jaggnathpur Dist. Ranchi. ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate For the JUVNL : Mr. Amit Kumar, SC [in W.P.(S) No. 5128 of 2014] Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate [in W.P.(S) No. 2770 of 2020] For the State : Mr. Suresh Kumr, SC (L&C)-II Mr. Pankaj Kr. Choudhary, AC to SC (L&C)-II -------- 2026:JHHC:4388 2 Order No.22 /Dated: 16th February 2026 Learned counsel for the respective petitioners submits that the petitioners have taken back the entire file from him couple of years ago. 2. From record it appears that no fresh Vakalatnama has been filed. From the prayer made in this writ application and the facts narrated in the pleadings it appears that pension of the petitioner was forfeited vide order dated 18.10.2019 under Rule 43 (a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule since the petitioner has been convicted in one criminal case. From order- sheet it appears that the case is lingering only due to the fact that the criminal appeal is pending before this Court. 3. Now since the petitioner has already taken back file from the advocate on record and no fresh Vakalatnama has been filed and the order of punishment has been imposed on the basis of conviction in a criminal case against which the criminal appeal is pending, interest of justice would be sufficed by disposing of these writ applications by giving liberty to the respective petitioners that if he/they would succeed in the criminal appeal; he/they may take appropriate remedy as available to him/them before the appropriate authority. 4. With the aforesaid observation both these writ applications stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 16th February 2026 Amit Uploaded on 14/03/2026