2026:JHHC:18801-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 214 of 2022 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. – Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Commissioner, Simbhum, Kolhan Division, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S.-Sadar, District-Singhbhum West, Jharkhand. 4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Forest Colony, P.O. and P.S.- Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Jai Prakash Uddyan, P.O. and P.S.-Adityapur, Jamshedpur, District-Saraikela- Kharsawan, Jharkhand 6. The Conservator of Forest, Southern Circle, Near Police Line, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S.-Sadar, District-Singhbhum West, Jharkhand. 7. The Conservator of Forest, Afforestation and Social Forestry, Jai Prakash Uddyan, P.O. and P.S.-Adityapur, Jamshedpur, District- Saraikela- Kharsawan, Jharkhand. 8. The Conservator of Forest, Singhbhum State Trading Circle, Jai Prakash Uddyan, P.O. and P.S.-Adityapur, Jamshedpur, District- Saraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand. ... ... Appellants Versus 1. Ramdhyan Mishra, son of late Jouha Mishra, resident of Social Forestry Division, P.O.-Chaibasa, P.S.- Sadar, District-Singhbhum West, Jharkhand. 2. Jagdish Narayan Verma, Son of Shiv Dayal Verma, resident of Baranimdih, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum. 3. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Shyam Narayan Prasad, resident of Saranda State Trading Division, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.- Chaibasa, District- West Singhbhum. 4. Om Prakash Ambastha, Son of Late Chandra Sekhar Prasad, resident of South Division, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum. 5. Anjani Kumar Singh, Son of Late Kamauda Prasad Singh, resident of South Division, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum. 6. Nikunj Bihari Mahto, Son of Ram Krishna Mahto, resident of Forest Colony, European Quarters, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum. 7. Jitendra Kumar, Son of Late Bundi Choudhary, resident of D.F.O. Office, Kolhan Division, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum. 8. Md. Ilyas Ansari, Son of Late Abdul Rahim Ansari, resident of Forest Quarter, Qtr No. 27, Ρ.Ο. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum. 9. Shyam Lal Soy, Son of Late Agar Singh Soy, resident of South Division, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum. 2026:JHHC:18801-DB -2- 10. Gopal Pan, Son of Sri Sukhdeo Pan, resident of South Division, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum. 11. Jamadar Oraon, Son of Late Sukara Oraon, resident of C.F. Southern Circle, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum. 12. Binod Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Regishwari Prasad Sinha, resident of Forest Colony, Near Police Line, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum. 13. Degan Gope, son of Late Bhagwani Gope, Resident C.P. Office, Southern Circle, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West Singhbhum. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III. --------- 13/Dated: 29.06.2026 1. Heard Mr Sahbaj Akhtar, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III, for the appellant-State. 2. I.A. No. 5034 of 2024 for ignoring defect No. 3 is allowed, and the said I.A. is disposed of. 3. I.A. No. 9719 of 2023 seeks condonation of delay of 52 days in instituting the accompanying appeal. Most of the contesting respondents have been served. 4. The delay has been sufficiently explained, apart from the fact that the same is not quite inordinate. 5. Therefore, we condone the delay and dispose of I.A. No. 9719 of 2023. 6. After condoning the delay, we have heard Mr Sahbaj Akhtar on the merits of the appeal. 7. This L.P.A. is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 04.02.2022 disposing of W.P. (S) No. 3943 of 2010. 8. Mr Sahbaj Akhtar submitted that the learned Single Judge placed undue emphasis on the case of Mr David Angaria, when, in fact, it was 2026:JHHC:18801-DB -3- clarified that the benefit granted to Mr David Angaria applied only to his case and was not to be treated as a precedent in other cases. He submitted that even otherwise, in such matters, the date of appointment and not the date of joining is crucial. On these grounds, Mr Sahbaj Akhtar submitted that the learned Single Judge’s order warrants interference. 9. We have considered Mr Sahbaj Akhtar’s contentions. However, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept his appeal on the above contentions. 10. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioners were directed to join their duties after their selection, some days prior to the issuance of formal appointment letters. The appointment letter dated 30.06.1980 also clarified that these petitioners were expected to join on 17.06.1980, which is incidentally the date on which the petitioners did join in their appointed posts. 11. Based on certain clarifications issued on 27.02.2008 and 08.03.2010, the benefits of A.C.P. were sought to be denied to these petitioners, on the ground that in all such matters the formal letters of appointment are crucial, not the date of joining the services, as against the appointed posts. 12. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has correctly reasoned that the clarifications of 27.02.2008 and 08.03.2010 could not apply to the petitioners who had joined in the 1980s. The learned Single Judge noted that these petitioners have discharged their duties in the posts they were appointed to from the date of their joining. The learned Single Judge also noted that, in identical circumstances, similar relief was granted to one Mr David Angaria, and no distinguishing feature was pointed out. 2026:JHHC:18801-DB -4- 13. In our opinion, there is no fault in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge as reflected in the impugned order. For the purposes of A.C.P., the date of joining would be crucial. This was regarded as crucial in the case of David Angaria, who was granted the benefits claimed by the petitioners. Merely stating that the benefits granted to David Angaria were restricted to his case, without explaining the distinction between David’s position and the position of the petitioners herein, cannot be a ground for any hostile discrimination against the petitioners. 14. Even otherwise, based on clarifications issued after almost three decades, it cannot be a ground for denying the petitioners the benefits of A.C.P., particularly when there is no dispute whatsoever that the petitioners, from the dates of their joining, have discharged their duties in the appointed posts. Even the formal appointment letters issued a little later required the petitioners to join on their respective dates of joining. 15. Accordingly, we find no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal and dismiss the same without any order for costs. 16. Pending I.A. seeking stay upon the implementation of the impugned order will not survive and is disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 29.06.2026 N.A.F.R. APK/AKT Uploaded on 01.07.2026