2026:JHHC:8444-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 74 of 2019 UMA KANT SAHAY, aged about 64 years, Son of Late Basudeo Narayan Prasad, resident of New Area, 3 Land P.O. and P.S. 85, Hazaribagh Sadar, District Hazaribagh. Presently working as Block Panchayat Raj Offier, Barkagaon, Block-Barkagoan, P.O. P.S.- Balkagaon, Dist- Hazaribagh. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & N.R.E.P. (Special Diviion) Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi at Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate. For Resp.-State: Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II. --------- 05/Dated: 25.03.2026 I.A. No. 1646 of 2020 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this interlocutory application, the appellants-State seeks condonation of delay of 133 days for instituting this review petition. 3. We have perused the averments in the I.A. and we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown. 4. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and I.A. No. 1646 of 2020 is disposed of. 2026:JHHC:8444-DB 2 Civil Review No.74 of 2019 5. Heard Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr. S.C.-II for the respondent- State. 6. This review petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th January 2019 disposing of L.P.A. No. 31 of 2017. 7. The review petitioner had filed W.P. (S) No. 6229 of 2015, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 31.08.2016. The State filed two L.P.As. i.e. L.P.A. No. 31 of 2017 and L.P.A. No.480 of 2016 against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 31.08.2016. By judgment and order dated 16th January 2019, both the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the State were allowed. 8. The Review petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 11456 to 11458/2019 to question the Division Bench’s order dated 16.01.2019 disposing of L.P.A. Nos. 31 of 2017 and L.P.A. No. 480 of 2016. However, as is clear from the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 01.07.2019, these Special Leave petitions were withdrawn with liberty to file review petitions before this Court. 9. Pursuant to the liberty, the review petitioner filed Civil Review No.92 of 2019 seeking review of the order dated 16.01.2019 in L.P.A. No. 480 of 2016 and the present review petition, which is filed against the very same order but in the context of L.P.A. No. 31 of 2017. 10. A coordinate Bench vide judgment and order dated 23.08.2022 has rejected Civil Review No. 92 of 2019. Identical contentions are raised in the present review petition. This order, therefore, will cover the fate of the present review petition. This is more so because against the coordinate Bench’s order dated 23.08.2022, the Special Leave Petition 2026:JHHC:8444-DB 3 (Civil) Diary Nos. 5008 of 2023 filed by Umakant Sahay was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.03.2023. 11. Accordingly, by adopting the reasoning in the coordinate Bench’s order dated 23.08.2022, we dismiss this review petition as devoid of any merit. 12. Interim application(s), if any, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 25.03.2026 N.A.F.R. APK/Amar Uploaded on 01.04.2026