2026:JHHC:8478-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 621 of 2025 ------ The Director, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1. Mahadeo Bhagat, son of Late Suka Bhagat, resident of Village Lichi Bagan, P.O. & P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi 2. Sabindra Kumar, son of Late Suka Bhagat, resident of Village Lichi Bagan, P.O. & P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi .... .... .... Respondents/Writ Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 4. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Appellant : Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, A.C. to Sr. S.C. I For the Res. Nos.1& 2/Writ Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate ------ Order No.03 / Dated : 25.03.2026 I.A. No.8731 of 2024 This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning a delay of 169 days in filing the appeal. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 169 days in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned. I.A. No.8731 of 2024 stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 621 of 2025 Heard Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, learned A.C. to Sr. S.C. I, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2/writ petitioners. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.4306 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the writ application preferred by the respondent nos.1 and 2 for grant of promotion to them, has been allowed with a direction to the respondent no.3 in the writ application to consider the case of the writ 2026:JHHC:8478-DB 2 petitioners along with other eligible persons for promotion to the post of Block Panchayat Raj Officer. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the writ petitioners/respondent nos.1 and 2 have superannuated prior to being granted promotion, the learned Single Judge could not have passed a direction upon the respondent no.3 in the writ application to consider the promotion of the writ petitioners/respondent nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred the case of Government of West Bengal & Others Versus Dr. Amal Satpathi & Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512. 4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 has submitted the learned Single Judge has merely directed for consideration of the case of promotion and in fact, the present appeal in the backdrop of the observations made by the learned Single Judge, is not maintainable. He has further submitted that so far as the case under reference is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. In Government of West Bengal & Others Versus Dr. Amal Satpathi & Others, (supra), the primary question which was for consideration is as follows: - “15. The primary question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether respondent No.1, who was recommended for the promotion before his retirement but did not receive actual promotion to the higher post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial benefits of the promotional post after his retirement?” Thereafter, it has been held as follows: - “21. While we recognize respondent No.1’s right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity.” 6. Though, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the case under reference will apply to the case of the appellant, but it seems that the moot question which was considered and answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was with respect to the entitlement to notional financial 2026:JHHC:8478-DB 3 benefits of the promotional post after retirement. The same would in no circumstance apply to the present case. In this context, we may refer to the operative part of the order dated 31.01.2024 passed in W.P. (S) No.4306 of 2023 which reads as follows: - “Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the respondent no. 3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners along with other eligible persons for promotion to the post of Block Panchayat Raj Officer within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 7. The learned Single Judge has merely directed the respondent no.3 in the writ application to consider the case of the respondent nos.1 and 2 along with other eligible persons for promotion to the post of Block Panchayat Raj Officer. The concerned respondents in the writ application are to consider the case of the respondent nos.1 and 2 and take a decision on the same. We do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 passed in W.P. (S) No.4306 of 2023. Consequently, the writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Anit Uploaded 07.04.2026