2026:JHHC:25988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4787 of 2026 1. Bachan Lal Yadav, aged about 64 years, son of Late Shambhu Nath Ahir, resident of village Fulwar, P.O. Rahe, P.S. Rahe, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2.Kalpana Tanti, aged about 59 years, daughter of Biseshwer Prasad Tanti, resident of Qr. No.B/760/II, Site-5, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Dilip Kumar, aged about 62 years, son of Late Banmali Hajam, resident of village Hurundih, P.O. Rargaon, P.S. Tamar, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4.Md. Qaiser Alam Ansari, aged about 63 years, son of Late Md. Usman, resident of Road No. 13-A, Jawahar Nagar, Jamshedpur, P.O. Azadnagar, P.S. Mango, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. 5. Shekh Shakeel Ahmad, aged about 62 years, son of Late Shekh Moin Uddin, resident of at Sharif Colony Bari Dargah, Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Nawada, District Nawada, Bihar. 6. Santu Tiwari, aged about 66, aged Sri Mohan Tiwari, resident of village Joad, P.O.-Singra Khurd, P.S. Sadar, Daltonganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand, 7. Nagendra Prasad Singh, aged about 59 years, son of Late Choudhary Saman Singh, resident of village Nawadih, Bhakasi, P.O. Dhangaon, P.S. Lesliganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand. 8. Nawal Kishor Singh, aged about 60 years, son of Late Baldev Prasad Singh, resident of Block No.112/214, Road No.14, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Regional Joint Director of Education/ Regional Deputy Director of Education(R.D.D.E.), Palamu Division, Medininagar, P.O. & P.S.- Medininagar, District-Palamau, Jharkhand. 4. The Regional Joint Director of Education/ Regional Deputy Director of Education (R.D.D.E.), Kolhan Division, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.-Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 2026:JHHC:25988 2 5. The District Education officer (D.E.O.), Palamu, P.O. & P.S.- Medininagar, District-Palamau, Jharkhand. 6. The District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E), Palamu, P.O. & P.S.- Medininagar, District-Palamau, Jharkhand. 7. The District Treasury Officer, Palamu, P.O. & P.S.-Medininagar, District-Palamau, Jharkhand. 8. The District Education officer (D.E.O.), Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.-Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum Jharkhand. 9. The District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E), Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.-Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 10. The District Treasury Officer, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 11. The District Education officer (D.E.O.), Seraikella-Kharsawan, P.O & P.S.-Seraikella, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand. 12. The District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E), Seraikella- Kharsawan, P.O. & P.S.-Seraikella, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand. 13. The District Treasury Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan, P.O. & P.S.- Seraikella, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand. 14. The Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, Ranchi. P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. .... Respondent(s) -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lalit Kumar Singh, Advocate Saba Ali, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anuj Burman, AC to GA-IV For the Respondent No.14 : Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate -------- Order No.2 /Dated: 28th August 2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “I. For issuance of an appropriate, writ/s, order/s, direction/s in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the concerned respondent authorities to consider the case/ representations of the petitioners, in respect of, revision of the scale of pay sanctioned and given to them by way of provisions of Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.)/pay-up-gradation as Rs.5000-150-8000 w.e.f. 18.09.2003 (1st A.C.P.) whereas petitioners are eligible and entitled for the scale of pay of Rs.5500-175-9000 in place of 5000-150-8000 as per Clause-2(3) of resolution contained in Memo No.5207/F dated 14.08.2002 r/w resolution contained in Memo No.288/F dated 05-02-2007 and resolution contained in Memo No.636/F dated 08.03.2007 in this regard. And 2026:JHHC:25988 3 II. For that issuance of an appropriate, writ/s, order/s, direction/s in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the concerned respondent authorities regarding making the payment of all consequence benefits which accrue after the revision of scale of pay of Rs.5500-175-9000 as 1st A.C.P./pay up-gradation w.e.f. 18.09.2003 in this regard. AND/OR III. Pass such other order or Orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents authorities is not considering the representation of the petitoners in respect of scale of pay of Rs. 5500-175-9000 as 1st ACP w.e.f 18.09.2003 and sitting tight over the matter. He submits that this writ application may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned respondent for redressal of their grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in this case though a counter affidavit has been filed however if the petitioners wish to approach the respondents they may do so. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the petitioners to approach the 2nd Respondent by filing a detailed representation along with all relevant documents as early as possible. The moment 2nd Respondent receives such representation, he shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law and applicable Rules and Regulations by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 5. It goes without saying that if the claim of the petitioners is found to be genuine, necessary consequential order be issued within a further period of 4 weeks. 6. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 28th August 2026 Amit Uploaded on 6/9/2026