2026:JHHC:2613-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 77 of 2025 Shiva Shankar Mishra, S/o Late Deo Bansh Mishra, R/o T-24, Astha Regency, PO-Hehal, PS-Pandra, District-Ranchi ... ... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, having its office at Kusai Colony, Ranchi 4. The General Manager (H.R. & G. Adm.), Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, having its office at Kusai Colony, Ranchi 5. The General Manager (F & A), Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, having its office at Kusai Colony, Ranchi 6. The General Manager, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, having its office at Sringari Complex, Canary Hill Road, Transmission Zone-5, PO & PS-Korra, District-Hazaribagh 7. The Manager (F & A), Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, having its office at Sringari Complex, Canary Hill Road, Transmission Zone-5, PO & PS-Korra, District-Hazaribagh ... … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Appellant : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II For the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to Mr. Manoj Kumar, Sr. SC, JUVNL ----- Order No. 02 Dated: 02.02.2026 I.A. No. 1579 of 2025 1. The instant interlocutory application is disposed of by condoning the delay of 10 days in filing this L.P.A. 2. The delay has been satisfactorily explained and further, the same is also not inordinate. 3. The present interlocutory application is disposed of. L.P.A. No. 77 of 2025 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2026:JHHC:2613-DB 2 5. The appellant challenges the learned Single Judge’s order dated 24.10.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 886 of 2022 by which the appellant’s claim for interest on delayed payment of M.A.C.P. has been rejected. 6. The records show that the appellant has been granted the benefits of M.A.C.P. as well as promotion. Further, there is nothing on record to show that such benefits were accepted by the appellant without prejudice or under protest for non-payment of interest on the alleged delay in awarding the same. 7. Even if the aspect of the absence of any protest and consequently apprehension is kept aside for the time being, there are no details based upon which the appellant contends that the M.A.C.P. or promotion benefits were delayed unreasonably. The learned Single Judge has also observed that nothing was brought on record to show that there was delay on the part of the respondents in extending the benefits of M.A.C.P. The same position continues before us as well. 8. Though the claim is for statutory interest, no statute is brought to our notice either prescribing any particular time limit or providing for interest where such time limit is exceeded. No doubt, even in the absence of any statutory relief prescribing time limit, the respondents are expected to act within a reasonable period. However, nothing is brought on record to show that there was any unreasonable delay in extending the benefits of M.A.C.P or promotion to the appellant. 9. In the above circumstances, we are unable to fault the view taken 2026:JHHC:2613-DB 3 by the learned Single Judge. Based upon vague pleadings, a claim for interest by alleging unreasonable delay cannot be entertained. 10. For all the above reasons, we dismiss this appeal without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) February 02, 2026 Manish/Ritesh Uploaded on 03.02.2026