2026:JHHC:18039 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 579 of 2026 --------- 1. Jaideb Mahato @ Jaidev Mahato (83 yrs) s/o Fakua Mahato r/o village Salukdih P.O. Situ P.S. Ichagarh, District Seraikella Kharswan. 2. Sarla Bala Devi (79 Yrs.) w/o Late Sita Ram Gope r/o village Herumda P.O Urmal P.S Chowka Dist. Seraikella Kharswan. 3. Dina Bandhu Mahato (78 Yrs.) s/o late Hira Lal Mahato r/o village Paharpur P.O Bansa P.S Chowka District Seraikella Kharswan. 4. Panchanu Gope (76 Yrs.) w/o late Lakshmi Narayan Gope r/o village & P.O Burahatu P.S Ichagarh District Seraikella Kharswan. 5. Sharat Chandra Kumbhkar (82 years) S/o late Banamdi Kumbhkar, r/o village Ruchap (Shanti Ashram), P.O., P.S.- Chandil, Dist- Seraikella Kharswan ......Petitioner(s) Versus 1. That State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner East Singhbhum Jamshedpur P.O, P.S Town Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum. 3. The District Superintendent of Education East Singhbhum Jamshedpur P.O, P.S Town Jamshedpur Dist. East Singhbhum. 4. The District Provident Fund Officer East Singhbhum Jamshedpur P.O, P.S Town Jamshedpur Dist. East Singhbhum. .....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahato, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : A.C. to G.P.-I --------- 02/Dated:-19.06.2026 I.A. No. 7685 of 2026 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for ignoring the defect, as pointed out by the registry, in view of the fact that the petitioner No.5 in the writ application died after the order passed by this Court and before filing of this C.M.P. 2. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7685 of 2026 is allowed and the defect as pointed out by the registry, is hereby ignored and the petitioner No.4- Panchanu Gope of this CMP is treated as legal representative of original petitioner No.5-Lakshmi Narayan Gope 2026:JHHC:18039 2 of the Writ Application. C.M.P. 579 of 2026 3. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioners praying that in the order dated 26.06.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.6363 of 2018, the district in the address portion of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 has been given as district “East Singhbhum”, but they will come under the district “Seraikella Kharsawan”. 4. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the necessary amendment be made in the order dated 26.06.2019. 5. There is no objection from the respondents. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid submission and looking to the prayer, it appears that in the cause title of the order dated 26.06.2019 of W.P.(S) No.6363 of 2018, in the address portion of Respondent No.2 it has been typed as “Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum” and in Respondent No.3 and 4, it has been typed as “East Singhbhum” as district; however, the same should be “Seraikella Kharsawan”. 7. Accordingly, in the address portion of the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 the aforesaid districts shall be read as “Seraikella Kharsawan” in the order dated 26.06.2019 in the cause title of W.P.(S) No.6363 of 2018. 8. With the aforesaid modification, the instant application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) June 19, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 01/07/2026