Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3480 (JHR)

Ramrup Sarkar Alias Ram Rup Sarkar v. The Damodar Valley Corporation Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors

WPC/7653/2017 · 2026-01-30

Deepak Roshan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:2537 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7653 of 2017 Ramrup Sarkar @ Ram Rup Sarkar, S/o Late Siddheshwar Sarkar, at present resident of Flat No. 1A, Shivam Apartment, Radha Govind Street, Tharpakhna, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... … Petitioner(s) Versus (1) The Damodar Valley Corporation through the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata-700054. (2) The Secretary, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata-700054. (3) The Director (HRD), Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata-700054. (4) The Additional Secretary, Damodar Valley Corporation, Bhabani Bhavan, Alipore, Kolkata-700027 (5) The Deputy Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Panchet Hydel Power Station, Damodar Valley Corporation, P.O.-Panchet Dam, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) Pin-828206 ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anjani Kr. Verma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Karbir, Advocate -------- Order No. 10 /Dated: 30th January 2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1.i) For direction to the respondents for shifting the date of implementing the Uniform Career Progression (U.C.P.) w.e.from 9.8.1999 instead of 1.1.2007 as per the Office Memorandum No. PL-28/ 734 (CON) PT.II-1830 dt. 2.2.1999 (Annexure-2) issued by the Resp. No. 4, by which it was laid down in Paragraph 13 that the stagnation and sliding over scheme will be reviewed if Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme is introduced by Government of India and the Govt. of India introduced the ACP Scheme w.e.from 9.8.1999 by Govt. of India, vide O.M. No. 35034/1/97-Estt. (D) dated 9.8.1999 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India but contrary to the said Letter dated 2.2.1999, the respondent have taken the decision to implement the Uniform Career Progression (U.C.P.) Scheme only for those employees, who were in service on or after 1.1.2007 vide Office Memorandum No. PL- T/Group-B,C,D (UCP)-1169 dt.9.8.2007 (Annexure-3) instead of 9.8.1999 as implemented by the Govt. of India as such the said action is causing great financial loss to those employees such as the petitioner, who retired in the year 2005. ii) For direction to the respondents to revise the pension and Gratuity of the 2026:JHHC:2537 2 petitioner after taking the decision to implement the Uniform Career Progression (U.C.P.) Scheme w.e.from 9.8.1999 instead of 1.1.2007 and to pay the consequential benefits such as arrears of pension etc. to the petitioner. iii) For grant of such other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner would be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case set forth in the Writ Application.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed several representations during the period from 2011 to 2016 and lastly on 12.08.2017 before the respondent no.2 for change of cut off date for extending the benefits of Uniform Carrer Progression (U.C.P) and modification/revision of his pension and gratuity but till date no decision has been taken by the respondent-authority. He submits that now the petitioner has retired on 31.12.2005 from the post of Assistant Grade-I from Panchet Hydel Power Station, Damodar Valley Corporation. As such he submits that this case may be disposed of by directing the respondent- authority to consider the representation of the petitioner for redressal of his grievance. 3. Though a counter affidavit has been filed in this case, however, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the petitioner chooses to approach the respondent-authority, he may do so. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and looking to the prayer made in the instant writ application, interest of justice would be sufficed by directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the concerned respondent along with all relevant documents and if any such representation is filed before the concerned respondent, he/she shall look into the matter and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 5. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 30th January 2026 Amit Uploaded on 12/03/2026