2026:JHHC:19624 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3206 of 2026 --------- 1. Panwati Kerai, D/o Late Gopal Kerai, R/o Vill.-Chainpur, P.O.- Chandpur, P.S.-Chakradharpur, Dist. - West Singhbhum 2. Chupad Kui, Aged about 77 years, Wife of Late Hari Bandiya, Resident of Village-Lakhanbadi, P.O.-Mahulpani, P.S.- Chakradharpur, Dist- West Singhbhum. 3. Sanyasi Pradhan, Aged about 72 years, Son of Beni Pradhan, Resident of Vill. Pansuwan, P.O.-Chainpur, P.S.- Chakradharpur, Dist.- West singhbhum. 4. Bisheswar Mahto, Aged about 74 years, Son of Late. Duryodhan Mahto, Resident of Vill.-Pirudih, P.O.-Chainpur, Ps- Chakradhrpur, Dist-West Singhbhum 5. Mini Bandiya, Aged about 90 years (As per Aadhar Card), Wife of Late Jagannath Bandiya, Resident of Vill-Pariya, P.O.- Mahulpani, P.S.-Chakradharpur, Dist- West Singhbhum 6. Sawana Gagrai, Aged about 57 years, Wife of Late Sudra Gagrai Resident of Vill- Lowjoda, P.O.-Gopinathpur, P.S.-Toklo, Dist.- West Singhbhum. 7. Ranjit Kumar Das, Aged about 78 years, Son of Late. Sudhir chandraDas, Resident of Vill-Chainpur, Po-Chandpur, Ps- Chakradharpur, Dist- West Singhbhum. ......Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of HRD, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, West-Singhbhum, at Chaibasa, P.O.& P.S.: Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum. 5. The Senior Auditor, Finance (Audit) Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. .....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kr. Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Achyut Keshav, AAG-V --------- 03/Dated:-03.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs: i.) For issuance of Writ in nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to forthwith hold that the petitioner no.- 1,3,4 & 7, who worked on the post of assistant teacher (retired now) on completion of 12 years of 2026:JHHC:19624 2 service was entitled to get the benefit of promotion w.e.f. 1989 and further to hold and declare that the petitioners are entitled to revised pay scale w.e.f. 01/06/1989 @ Rs. 1900/-per month in accordance with 5th Pay Revision and further Rs. 6,950/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in accordance with 6th pay revision as per the order of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 656 of 2003, W.P.(S) No. 1330 of 2005 and analogous writ petitions and finally W P.(S) No.- 969 of 2006 with W.P.(S) No. 6288 and 2005 (decided on 15.06.2016) with respect to similarly situated teachers. ii.) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to also hold that the petitioner no. 2, 5 & 6, whose husbands were working on the post of assistant teacher and died after retirement, on completion of 12 years of service was entitled to get the benefit of promotion w.e.f. 1989 and further to hold and declare that the petitioners are entitled to revised pay scale w.e.f. 1989 @ Rs.1900/- per month in accordance with 5th Pay Revision and further Rs. 6,950/ w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in accordance with 6th pay revision as per the order of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 656 of 2003, W.P.(S) No. 1330 of 2005 and analogous writ petitions and finally W.P.(S) No. 969 of 2006 with W.P.(S) No.-6288 and 2005 (decided on 15.06.2016) with respect to similarly situated teachers. iii.) The Petitioners further pray for issuance of appropriate direction upon the Respondents authorities to pay the arrears and the consequential benefits and the difference of amount accrued in the post retiral benefits after re- calculating and re-fixing their pay scales. iv.) The Petitioners further pray for issuance of appropriate direction upon the Respondents to ensure that the amount is disbursed so that the legitimate claim of the Petitioners is settled with 6% interest on the arrears to be calculated till the date of actual payment. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue with regard to promotion and monetary benefit in view of the fact that the petitioners worked on the post of Assistant Teacher for 12 years and after completion, they were entitled to get benefit of promotion with effect from 1989 and further, they are entitled for revision of pay with effect from 01.06.1989 @ Rs.1900/- and other issues which are involved in this writ application are same and similar with that of the order passed by this Court in several writ applications that are annexed at Annexures-3 to 10 of this writ application. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not oppose the aforesaid contention; rather submits that the issue involved in this writ application was raised before the coordinate bench in several writ applications and one of them being W.P.(S) No. 969 of 2006 with W.P.(S) No.6288 of 2005; whereby the coordinate bench 2026:JHHC:19624 3 of this Court has held that the petitioners are entitled to get their pay fixed in the revised scale and they are entitled to get the benefit of corresponding services from time to time. For brevity, Para-18 of the judgment rendered in W.P.(S) No. 969 of 2006 with W.P.(S) No.6288 of 2005 is extracted hereinbelow: “18. In view of the findings and observations made above, the impugned order dated 30.1.2003 is hereby quashed holding that the petitioners are entitled to get their pay fixed in the revised scale and they are entitled to get the benefit of corresponding revision from time to time. If the petitioners during the intervening period have been paid their salaries in reduced scale, the same will be re-calculated and the arrears be paid to them at the earliest. The entire exercise should be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of five months from today.” 5. Having regard to the above, since learned counsel for the rival parties admit that the issue has already been settled; as such, this writ application stands allowed in the line and similar finding what has been given in the case of W.P.(S) No. 969 of 2006 with W.P.(S) No.6288 of 2005 which was followed by the Coordinate Bench in several judgments. 6. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to give similar benefits to the petitioners of this case by fixing their pay in the revised scale and they will further get the benefit of pay revision from time to time. A formal order with regard to the same be issued and consequential benefits be also paid to the petitioners and the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) JULY 03, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 10/07/2026