DHANANJAY KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA,THORUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF STEEL, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
WPC/4763/2026 · 2026-08-28
Deepak Roshan
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 25046 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 25046 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:26074 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 4763 of 2026
---------- Dhananjay Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of late Paramhans Singh, resident of At. Quarter No. 315, Sector 3E, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Sector-3, P.S. City Thana, Bokaro, Dist. Bokaro (Jharkhand).
………. Petitioner Versus
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Steel, Government of India, Having its office at Udyog Bhawan, Dr. Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi, P.O.+P.S.-New Delhi, Dist-New Delhi, 110011
2. Steel authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), through its Chairman & Managing Director, having its office at- Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, P.O+P.S.- New Delhi, District New Delhi, 110003.
3. Bokaro Steel Plant, through its Executive Director (P&A), Having its office at Sector-1, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, P.O.- Bokaro, P.S. Bkaro, Dist-Bokaro, Jharkhand, 827001
4. The Manager, Medical Board, Bokaro General Hospital (BGH), Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, Having its office at-Sector-1, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, P.O.- Bokaro, P.S.-Bkaro, Dist-Bokaro, Jharkhand, 827001
………. Respondents. ----------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ranesh Anand, SPC
Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
---------- 02/ 28.08.2026 A preliminary objection has been raised in view of the fact that the grievance of the petitioner is against Steel Authority of India Ltd. and he will have to move Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this application in order to avail appropriate remedy.
3. There is no objection from the other side.
4. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed.
5. It goes without saying that since the matter was pending before this Court; as such, the learned Tribunal shall pass an appropriate order on the question of limitation in the background of this fact.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) 28th August, 2026 kunal/- Uploaded 03.09.2026