( 2026:JHHC:26135-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 590 of 2025 With I.A. Nos. 13896 & 13897 of 2024 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi. 3. The Director, Department of Secondary and Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi. 4. The District Education Officer, Lubi Circular Road, Hirapur, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.- Hirapur, District- Dhanbad. ….. …. Appellants Versus 1. Hasib Ahmad Usmani, aged about 61 years, son of Late Shah Shamsuddin Ahmad Usmani, resident of Hafzah Cottage, by Pass Road, West Panderpala, near Mahjhiya Chat Talab, P.O.- B.Polytechnic, P.S.- Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 2. The State of Bihar 3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, P.O., P.S. & District- Patna. 4. The Secretary, Department of Secondary and Primary Education, Government of Bihar, P.O. P.S. & District- Patna. ….. … Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Appellants : Ms Rishi Bharti, AC to AAG-III For the Resp. No.1 : Mr Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr Mayank Mridul, Advocate ----- 02 /Dated: 31.08.2026 I.A. No. 13896 of 2024 1. This I.A. seeks condonation of delay of 153 days in filing the accompanying appeal. 2. We have perused the averments in the I.A. and we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown. 3. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and this I.A. is disposed of. L.P.A.No. 590 of 2025 4. Heard Ms Rishi Bharti, learned counsel for the appellants-State and Mr Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the 1st respondent (original petitioner). 5. This appeal challenges the learned Single Judge’s order dated 03.07.2024, the operative portion of which in paragraph 5 reads as follows:- ( 2026:JHHC:26135-DB ) 2 “5. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to verify the factual aspects/issues involved in the present writ petition vis. a vis. factual aspects/issues involved in in W.P.(S). No. 1386 of 2009 and other analogous cases, and if the facts/issues involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petition, the same benefits may be extended to the present petitioner also in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.” 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no interference is warranted with the impugned order, which merely directs the respondents (appellants herein) to verify the factual aspects / issues involved in the present matter vis-à-vis the factual aspects / issues involved in W.P.(S) 1386 of 2009 and other analogous cases. The impugned order directs that if the factual aspects / issues are same or similar, then, the benefits which were extended to the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 1386 of 2009 and other analogous cases should also be extended to the 1st respondent herein in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks. 7. In the judgment, there is no error in the direction issued in the impugned order. It is not as if the appellants have been deprived of the opportunity of verifying the factual aspects / issues. 8. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without any order for costs. Pending I.A, if any, will not survive and is disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) August 31, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 1.9.2026