ALOKE KUMAR SENGUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND And ORS
WPC/1841/2012 · 2026-08-29
Rajesh Shankar
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24519 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24519 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25993) p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1841 of 2012 ----- Aloke Kumar Sengupta, son of Late Keshav Chandra Sengupta, resident of Keshav Villa, North Office Para, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
.......... Petitioner. -Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents -----
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the State
: -----
Order No.09
Date: 29.08.2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no.1010 dated 4th February, 2012 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition), issued under the signature of respondent no.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment towards encashment of 69 days’ Earned Leave has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to release the amount payable towards 69 days’ Earned Leave accrued to him during his tenure as Member and Acting Chairman of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, even after his superannuation with effect from 31st January, 2009, along with interest thereon.
Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25993) p. 2 2. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner died. After his death, no substitution petition could be filed and, in the meantime, his widow also died. Thereafter, he has not been contacted by any of the heirs (if any) of the original petitioner for pursuing the present writ petition.
3. In view of the aforesaid facts as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of as abated.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) 29th August, 2026 Rohit/ Uploaded on 29.08.2026