Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4210 (JHR)

PRABHUDAN BARLA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF EDUCATION AND SCHOOL LITERACY

WPC/1600/2026 · 2026-03-24

Sri Ananda Sen

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:8442 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.1600 of 2026 ------- Prabhudan Barla, aged about 74 years, Son of Late Mashih Charan Barla, Resident of Village- Roya Munda, Post Office- Urte, Police Station- Bansjore, Block Bansjore, District- Simdega, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education and School Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, MDI Building, Dhurwa, Post Office and Police Station-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Director, Primary Education, State of Jharkhand, MDI Building, Dhurwa, Post Office and Police Station- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Simdega, Post Office and Police Station- Simdega, District- Simdega, Jharkhand. 4. The District Treasury Officer, Simdega, Post Office and Police Station- Simdega, District- Simdega, Jharkhand.. 5. The Principal Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, Ranchi, Post Office and Police Station- Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Respondents. ------- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : None For the State : Mr. Faisal Allam, AC to SC (Mines)-I For the A/c. Gen. : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate ------ 04/ 24.03.2026: No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 3. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for post retiral benefits. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, it has been stated in para-7 that no cause of action survives against the respondents. After referring it, counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that all the amounts have been paid. He submits that there is typographical error in the counter affidavit regarding the amount paid. 5. Considering the said submissions, I am not inclined to keep this writ petition pending. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. 7. Since according to the respondents all dues have been paid, if the petitioner has got any other grievance or any amount is still lying due, he may approach before the appropriate authority. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 24th March, 2026 Madhav/- Uploaded on: 01/04/2026