2026:JHHC:22115-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 62 of 2026 1. Anil Kumar Singh, aged about 54 years, Son of Ishwar Dayal Singh, Resident of Village- Duba, P.O.- Chando, P.S.- Chainpur, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand. 2. Aneshwar Singh, aged about 53 years, Son of Rajdeo Singh, Resident of Village- Duba, P.O.- Chando, P.S.-Chainpur, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand. 3. Bifan Singh, aged about 49 years, Son of Deni Singh, Resident of Village- Duba, P.O. Chando, P.S.-Chainpur, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand. 4. Babuni Singh, aged about 50 years, Son of Kariman Singh, Resident of Village- Duba, P.O.- Chando, P.S.-Chainpur, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand. 5. Sushila Devi, aged about 53 years, Wife of Ramlal Singh, Resident of Village Chando, P.O. Chando, P.S.- Chainpur, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand. 6. Nandkishore Thakur, aged about 55 years, Son of Late Jagdeo Thakur, Resident of Village Dokra, P.O.-Chando, P.S.- Chainpur, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand. 7. Anant Kumar Ram, aged about 51 years, Son of Gokhul Ram, Resident of Village Dokra, P.Ο. Chando, P.S. Chainpur, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand. 8. Rajendra Prajapati, aged about 49 years, Son of Late Pahal Prajapati, Resident of Village- Basariya Khurd, P.O. Chando, P.S. Chainpur, Dist. Palamu, Jharkhand. 9. Niranjan Mochi, aged about 55 years, Son of Ram Belash Mochi, Resident of Village Basariya, P.O.-Chando, P.S.- Chainpur, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand. 10. Chandrika Singh, aged about 53 years, Son of Dwarika Singh, Resident of Village Duba, P.O.-Chando, P.S.- Chainpur, Dist. Palamu, Jharkhand. 11. Mahendra Singh, aged about 52 years, Son of Nand Kishore Singh, Resident of Village- Duba, P.O.-Chando, P.S.- Chainpur, Dist. Palamu, Jharkhand. 12. Birendra Prajapati, aged about 54 years, Son of Nand Kishore Prajapati, Resident of Village Bhangdiha, P.O.-Chando, P.S.- Chainpur, Dist.- Palamu, Jharkhand … ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department (now School Education Literacy Department), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at MDI Building, HEC Township, P.O. Dhurwa P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2026:JHHC:22115-DB 5. The Director, Mass Education, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 6. Deoki Singh, aged about 62 years, son of Ramdas Singh, resident of Village-Sokra, P.O.-Chando, P.S.-Chainpur, District Palamu. 7. Istaque Ahmad, aged about 62 years, son of Kasim Mian, resident of Village + P.O.-Chando, P.S.-Chainpur, District- Palamu. 8. Bishundeo Singh, aged about 51 years, son of late Bhagirathi Singh, resident of Village-Alagdiha, P.O.-Chando, P.S.- Chainpur, District-Palamu. 9. Dharmendra Kumar Upadhyay, aged about 46 years, son of Sarju Upadhyay. 10. Triveni Thakur, aged about 55 years, son of Arjun Thakur. 11. Anita Devi, aged about 59 years, wife of Ganga Thakur. Sl. Nos. 9 to 11, resident of Village-Dokra, P.O.-Chando, P.S. Chainpur, District-Palamu 12. Nandlal Sao, aged about 56 years, son of Bhuvneshwar Sao, resident of Village-Besariya Kalan, P.O-Chando, P.S.-Chainpur, District-Palamu, 13. Suryadeo Singh, aged about 55 years, son of Harifa Singh, resident of Village Basariya, P.O-Chando, P.S-Chainpur, District - Palamu. 14. Bigan Singh, aged about 58 years, son of Basudeo Singh, resident of Village-Basariya, P.O.-Chando, P.S. - Chainpur, District Palamu. 15. Ramjit Sahu, aged about 58 years, son of Mohan Sahu, resident of Village-Awsane, P.O.-Chando, P.S.-Chainpur, District - Palamu. 16. Balkeshwar Sahu, aged about 50 years, son of Ram Saran Sahu, resident of Village-Awsane, P.O.-Chando, P.S.-Chainpur, District-Palamu. 17. Ful Kumari, aged about 52 years, daughter of Rajnath Pathak, resident of Village+P.O.-Kot, P.S.-Lesliganj, District-Palamu. 18. Brijdeo Singh, aged about 65 years, son of Raghu Singh. 19. Jaikrishna Singh, aged about 55 years, son of Jhaman Singh. Sl. Nos. 18 & 19, resident of Village + P.O.-Chando, P.S.- Chainpur, District-Palamau. 20. Narendra Choubey, aged about 59 years, son of Alakhdeo Choubey, resident of Village-Dakra, P.Ο.-Chando, P.S.- Chainpur, District-Palamu. 21. Nand Kishore Singh, son of Chulhan Singh, r/o village Basariya, P.O.-Chando, P.S.-Chainpur, District-Palamu. 22. Suryadeo Prajapati, son of Tapeshwar Prajapati, r/o village Chando, P.O.-Chando, P.S.-Chainpur, District-Palamu. …. … Respondents/Respondents 1. Ramgati Singh, aged about 53 years, son of Deni Singh. 2. Sarju Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Ramjanam Singh. Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 are resident of Village-Duba, Р.О.-Chando, P.S.- Chainpur, District-Palamu. 2026:JHHC:22115-DB 3. Deonarayan Gupta, aged about 52 years, son of Prithvi Sao, resident of Village + P.O.-Chando, P.S.-Chainpur, District- Palamu. 4. Raju Kumar, aged about 52 years, son of Tapsi Paswan, resident of Village + P.O.-Chando, P.S.-Chainpur, District- Palamu. 5. Urmila Gupta, aged about 50 years, wife of Deo Narayan Gupta, resident of Village + P.O.-Chando, P.S.-Chainpur, District - Palamau. 6. Suresh Singh, aged about 52 years, son of Amardayal Singh, resident of Village + P.O.-Chando, P.S.-Chainpur, District - Palamau. 7. Nandlal Singh, aged about 57 years, son of Bishwas Singh, resident of Village-Alagdiha, P.O.-Chando, P.S.-Chainpur, District - Palamau .......Appellants/Performa Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate For the State: Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, A.C. to A.G. --------- 02/Dated: 27.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. I.A. No. 10140 of 2026 seeks condonation of delay of 789 days in instituting a review petition against the judgment and order dated 14.06.2023 in L.P.A. No. 167 of 2019. 3. The averments in the I.A. are completely sketchy and unverifiable. Though the impugned order was made on 14.06.2023, the appellants’ claim was that the same was not communicated or informed to them by their own counsel. 4. The next paragraph states that when in the month of June 2025 they perused the case status on the High Court’s website they came to know about the dismissal of L.P.A. No. 167 of 2019. Then the appellants have pleaded that they are poor villagers and that they somehow collected money and approached the 2026:JHHC:22115-DB present set of Advocates in the month of August 2025 and filed a review petition after a delay of 789 days. 5. Based on the above averments, no case has been made out to condone the inordinate delay of 789 days. There is no material to indicate that the appellants’ counsel did not inform them of the disposal of their L.P.A. In any event, it is also the duty of the appellants to follow up the case, now that they have admitted that they had access to the High Court’s website and that they came to know from the website that their L.P.A. had been dismissed. 6. Based upon such casual and unverifiable statements in the I.A., no sufficient cause could be said to have been shown. 7. That apart, we note that the impugned order of which review is now applied for has, in paragraph no. 9, observed that the appellants approached the writ Court about 15 years after they were removed from service seeking relief of absorption. This petition was filed 15 years after the Patna High Court made an order, which the appellants felt would benefit them. Thus, the appellants, after their removal from service, sat on the fence for almost 15 years and only after they felt that some relief obtained by some parties before the Patna High Court would benefit them, instituted the petition seeking similar relief. It is well settled that parties cannot sit on the fence and then institute petitions after inordinate delay and laches. 8. Even on this occasion, the appellants have filed this review petition after 789 days, i.e. more than 2 years, by citing reasons which hardly inspire any confidence. 2026:JHHC:22115-DB 9. For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that no case is made out for condonation of delay. We dismiss I.A. No. 10140 of 2026. Consequently, the accompanying review petition will not survive and is disposed of. 10. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 27, 2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 30.07.2026