2026:JHHC:2349-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (PIL) No. 6235 of 2016 Anil Kumar Singh, Son of Bishwanath Singh, Range Forest Officer, Social Forestry Range, Chouparan (Hazaribagh)-825406 under Social Forestry Division, Koderma, permanent resident of MIG-C-115, Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi-834002, P.O.-Doranda & P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi … .… Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-100001 2. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi- 834004. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Forests, Environment and Climate Change, Govt. of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Mantralaya, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi-834002. 4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi-834004. 5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Planning-cum-Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi-834004. … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: In Person For the Resp-State: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. For the UOI: Mrs. Nitu Singh, CGC --------- 13/Dated: 29.01.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to constitute the Jharkhand State Administrative Tribunal to adjudicate the service related disputes of the State Governments employees as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Bihar Administrative Tribunal Act, 1982/Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 2026:JHHC:2349-DB -2- read with Article 323A of the Constitution of India and to constitute the Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM) at the State Level, Department Level, Directorate Level, Regional Level and District Level to consider and redress the service related grievances of the State Governments employees in terms of Resolution No. 79 dated 04.07.1986 of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar and letter No. 16/S.C. Ranchi, dated 27.01.2009 of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand. 3. At the very outset, the petitioner, in -person, accepted that the Bihar Administrative Tribunal Act, 1982, stands repealed and is no longer in force. Therefore, based upon the provisions of the Bihar Administrative Tribunal Act, 1982, there is no question of the petitioner seeking a mandamus for the constitution of a State Administrative Tribunal. 4. Article 323A of the Constitution provides that the Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by the Administrative Tribunals of disputes or complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any of the State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled or by the Government. Sub Clause (2) of Article 323A refers to a law made under Clause (1) of Article 323A. Sub clause (3) provides that the provisions of this Article shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force. 5. Pursuant to Article 323A, the Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides, inter alia, for the constitution of the 2026:JHHC:2349-DB -3- Central Administrative Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction, powers, and authority conferred upon it by or under the said Act. In the present petition, we are not concerned with the disputes relating to the establishment of Central Administrative Tribunals. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to establish a State Administrative Tribunal, and relies on Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Section 323A of the Constitution. 6. As noted above, Article 323A contains no mandate requiring the Central Government to establish a State Administrative Tribunal. Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 however, provides that the Central Government may, on receipt of a request in this behalf from any State Government, establish, by notification, on Administrative Tribunal for the State to be known as the (name of the State) Administrative Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on the Administrative Tribunal for the State by or under this Act. Section 4(3) also provides for the establishment of the State Administrative Tribunal by two or more States jointly. 7. Thus, even Section 4(2), does not contain any mandate requiring the Central Government or the State Government to establish a State Administrative Tribunal. Ultimately, based upon various factors, it is for the State to first consider whether the establishment of a State Administrative Tribunal is necessary. If so, the State is required to make a request in this regard to the Central Government. Upon receipt of such a request, the Central Government may establish the State Administrative Tribunal by issuing the necessary notification. The use of the expression “may” also indicates that there is no mandate upon the Central Government to accept the request of the State Government in every case. For cogent reasons, in a given case, the Central Government may even 2026:JHHC:2349-DB -4- decline to constitute a State Administrative Tribunal notwithstanding any request in that regard by the State Government. 8. A prerequisite for issuance of a writ of mandamus is the existence of a statutory or constitutional duty in the respondents against whom such writ is applied, and it is also a requirement that the petitioner must demonstrate the right which is vested in him or her for seeking such relief. Since this is a Public Interest Litigation, the issue of the petitioner’s right can be considered liberally. However, the petitioner must establish that a statutory or constitutional mandate is imposed on the respondents to constitute a State Administrative Tribunal. 9. Neither the provisions of Article 323A nor the provisions of Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, refer to any such constitutional or statutory mandate. In the absence of this essential prerequisite, we are afraid that no mandamus can be issued to the respondents for establishing a State Administrative Tribunal in Jharkhand. 10. Notwithstanding the above position and with a view to seeing whether there was any serious thought process on behalf of the State Government on the issue of establishing a State Administrative Tribunal, this Court made orders from time to time requiring the respondents to disclose their position on this issue. 11. The State Government, in its latest counter-affidavit filed on 8th January 2026, has stated that a committee has been constituted under the Chairmanship of a Member of the Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, to consider the issue of the pendency of service-related disputes. The Committee has submitted a report, and the same has been approved by the competent authority. 12. The counter-affidavit of the State Government further states that the Committee has recommended that a set of Rules be framed based on 2026:JHHC:2349-DB -5- the Standard Operating Procedure prepared by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha for the redressal and disposal of service and post-retirement grievances of officers and employees of all State Services/Cadres. The counter-affidavit further states that in compliance with such recommendation, a draft of “Jharkhand Sarkari Sewak Shikayat Niwaran Niyamawali, 2025” has been framed and action is being taken to obtain the approval of the competent authority regarding such draft rules. 13. The counter-affidavit states that after obtaining approval from the competent authority and the State Cabinet, the above rules will be notified. The counter-affidavit also states that the proposed rules provide for the nomination of a Nodal Officer in all Departments and districts to resolve grievances of Government servants and dispose of them within a prescribed time limit. There is also a provision for an appeal before the Secretary / Deputy Commissioner against the orders of the Nodal Officer. 14. Thus, it is not as if the State is completely oblivious to the issues arising from service disputes involving State Government employees, whether in service or retired. Some provisions are being made for the redressal of their grievances. We hope that such provisions will be made at an early date so that they can contribute to the expeditious resolution of these disputes. In the absence of any such grievance redressal machinery, the State Government employees, whether in service or retired, have no other alternative than to approach this Court seeking the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. Due to the pressure on this Court's docket, such disputes require considerable time to resolve. Therefore, we agree with the petitioner, who 2026:JHHC:2349-DB -6- appears in person, that some mechanism is necessary for expeditious resolution of at least such types of disputes. 16. Now that some steps are being taken by the State Government for formulating a mechanism in the form of “Jharkhand Sarkari Sewak Shikayat Niwaran Niyamawali, 2025, we do not think it necessary or appropriate to keep this petition pending. However, we note that the draft rules were enacted in 2025 and to date, they are awaiting approval from the competent authority and the State Cabinet. 17. We expect that this process be expedited and concluded within three months from today. Such finalisation would also be in the interest of the State Government itself, which, in a welfare State, cannot afford to have disgruntled employees who tend to be less efficient and diligent than they ought to be. Often, due to service-related issues, these Government servants cannot perform to the best of their abilities in the positions to which they are appointed and are duty-bound to serve. Therefore, expeditious machinery for resolving their service disputes will go a long way toward improving this position. Similarly, provisions should be made for the resolution of service disputes involving retired employees. Ultimately, these employees have given their lives and careers in the service of the State Government, and in the evening of their lives it would not be appropriate to leave them in the lurch or to require them to queue before the High Court for the resolution of their grievances. 18. Accordingly, we dispose of this W.P.(PIL) by directing the respondents to take a decision on the issue of notifying the “Jharkhand Sarkari Sewak Shikayat Niwaran Niyamawali, 2025” as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within three months from today. We clarify that we have not perused these “Niyamawali” of 2025 and therefore, nothing 2026:JHHC:2349-DB -7- in this judgment and order should be taken as this Court’s seal of approval for such “Niyamawali” of 2025. 19. This W.P.(PIL) is disposed of with the above direction, without any order for costs. 20. We appreciate the cause taken up by the petitioner, who is a practising Advocate of this Court. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 29.01.2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 02.02.2026