Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22534 (JHR)

MANISH KUMAR GUPTA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

WPC/5131/2021 · 2026-07-23

Sri Ananda Sen

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:21832 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P( C) No. 5131 of 2021 ----- Manish Kumar Gupta, aged about 23 yrs, s/o Shiv Shankar Gupta, r/o Harna Kundi Road, Purana Dumka, P.O Dumka PS Dumka (Town), Dist. Dumka … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Dept. Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, Dhurwa, PO & PS Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi 3. Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka PO & PS Dumka Dist. Dumka 4. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka PO& PS Dumka, Dist. Dumka 5. Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Dumka PO & PS Dumka Dist. Dumka … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advs. For the State : Mr. Tarun Kr. Mahato, AC to AG …...... 05 /23.07.2026: Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent to make ten months payment i.e from 01.03.2020 to 31.12.2020 along with interest, in respect of work which the petitioner has completed. Further he prayed to quash the letter dated 02.08.2021 whereby respondents have unequivocally stated that there is no dues from their end, which the petitioner entitled to receive. Further petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authority to pay holding tax of 5 months except 1 day from the period of 02.10.2019 to 29.02.2020 as because respondent no.5 has paid for the aforesaid period after deducting holding tax. Further petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authority to make payment of 1 day (01.10.2019) along with holding tax with interest in respect of work cleaning of the petitioner. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to a short term tender the petitioner was awarded the work of cleaning of different wards including Ward Nos. 14, 15, & 16 under Municipal Council, Dumka. The petitioner’s claim is that petitioner has worked from 01.10.2019 to 31.10.2020 and thereafter had also continued working for further three months as per the order of extension but he has not been paid the entitled amount as per the tender. 2 Thus, he is entitled to the said amount. He further submits that now for the extended period, beyond the original contractual period, the respondents have refused to pay the amount on the ground that the petitioner has not worked for the aforesaid extended period. He submits that his security deposit was returned which suggest that he has completed the work. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that this monetary claim which involves disputed question of fact cannot be entertained in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. He submits that in this particular case, the facts are disputed as the respondents have denied the assertion made by the petitioner that the petitioner has worked for the extended period, he refers to Annexure-20 which is the impugned letter. 5. After going through the impugned letter, I find that though the petitioner was awarded the work of maintaining and cleaning some wards of Dumka Municipality, the period of work was 2.10.2019 to 29.02.2020. The petitioner worked for the aforesaid period and on completion of the said work period, his security deposit was refunded to him. From the impugned order, it is also clear that petitioner had made an endorsement that there are no dues, thus the security deposit was returned. So far as the extended period is concerned i.e from 01.03.2020, it is the specific stand of the respondent that he has not worked, rather has voluntarily stopped the cleaning work. Thus, he is not entitled for any amount. 6. Considering the said fact and the dispute which is created here, the same cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution, rather it needs oral and documentary evidence for adducing the disputed as there are complicated question of facts. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 7. If the petitioner claims any amount, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly the instant writ application stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 23.07.2026 Anjali/- Uploaded…./07/2026