Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2131 (JHR)

Md Kabir Ansari And Ors v. Human Resources Department

WPC/2620/2016 · 2026-03-16

Deepak Roshan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:7123 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2620 of 2016 --------- 1. Md. Kabir Ansari, son of Khatir Ansari, resident of Kanduatar, P.O. Kuruwa, P.S. Karmatar, District-Jamtara. 2. Md. Taiyab, Son of Late Md. Ashraf, resident of Village-Badia, P.O. Baskuli, P.S. Karon, District-Deoghar. 3. Md. Iqbal Ansari, Son of Md. Abdul Kalam Ansari, Resident of Lakhna, P.O. and P.S. Madhupur, District-Deoghar. 4. Abdul Mustafa, Son of Late Abdul Quddus, Resident of Village- Chatnari, Post-Kusmaha, P.S. Margomunda, District-Deoghar. 5. Md. Neyamatullah Son of Md. Yahiua, Resident of Village- Lakhna, P.O. and P.S. Madhupur, District-Deoghar. ......Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Director Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi. 3. District Education Officer, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District- Deoghar. 4. Jharkhand Academic Council, through its Secretary, having office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District-Ranchi. 5. The State of Bihar. 6. The Management of the Madarsa Islamia Arabia, P.O. Banskupi, P.S. Karrah, Village-Badia, Distt.-Deoghar. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Navneet Toppo, A.C. to G.P.-I Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C. to G.A.(Bihar) M/s. Richa Sanchita, Malsi Pathak, Advocates --------- 36/Dated:-16.03.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs: For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/ direction from this Hon'ble Court or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to grant salary of the petitioner from 1998 till the present date as the petitioners have been working continuously as the regular teachers at Madarsa, Islamia Arbia Village-Badiya, District-Deoghar since their appointment as the teachers in the Madarsa Islamia Arbia School and also grant all the consequential benefits arising out of their service which the petitioners are found entitled. 2026:JHHC:7123 2 3. After due deliberation and passage of time, now, the current factual scenario as it stands today is that out of five petitioners, the grievance for payment of arrear of salary with regard to petitioner Nos.1 to 4 has been redressed and they have received the entire payment. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the moment the management of Madarsa board will send the details of petitioner No.5 to the State along with its report, the payment of petitioner No.5 will also be made in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the aforesaid factual scenario and submits that a direction be issued to the management to send the report as early as possible to the State Government so that petitioner No.5 can also get the entire payment as prayed in this writ application. 6. Since none appears on behalf of the respondent No.6, which is the management of Madarsa Islamia Arabia, Badia, District-Deoghar; accordingly, the instant application is hereby disposed of by directing the petitioner No.5 to approach the respondent No.6 along with copy of this order as early as possible. 7. The moment respondent No.6 will receive the copy of this order then he will send the detailed verification report to the respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. The respondent No.3, in turn after receiving the report, shall ensure that if there is no other legal impediment, the arrear 2026:JHHC:7123 3 of payment be made within a further period of six weeks. 9. It goes without saying that, so far as the prayer of petitioner Nos.1 to 4 has already been redressed; as such, there is no direction with regard to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) March 16, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 08.04.2026