2026:JHHC:8499-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 75 of 2019 1. Sri Ram Prasad Tiwari age- 62 years S/o late Anant Prasad Tiwari, R/o Gobrain, P.o & P.S.Gobrain, Dist-Bhagalpur. 2. Anil Kumar Khaware age-60 years S/o Late Radhika Prasad Khaware, R/o Chakravartin Lane, P.O & P.S. & Dist-Deoghar. 3. Deepak Kumar age- 59 years S/o Anandi Prasad, R/o Shibpuri park Opp S.B.I. training centre, Barmasia, P.O & P.S. & Dist-Deoghar. 4. Murlidhar Ram Seth age- 59 years S/o Mani Shankar Prasad, R/o Block Govindpur, P.O & P.S.Govindpur, Dist-Dhanbad. 5. Bimal Kumar Rout age-61 years S/o Late SukhDeo Prasad Rout, R/o Metroslane, Barganda, P.o & P.S.& Dist-Giridih. 6. Ramesh Kumar age-63 years S/o Late Bal Krishna Lal, R/o Puja Nivas, Indra Nagar, P.o, P.S.& Dist-Deoghar. … Petitioners Versus 1. The state of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Rural, Development, Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O & P.S.Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S.Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at P.O. + P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate. Mr. O.N. Tewary, Advocate. For Resp.-State: Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III. --------- 06/Dated: 25.03.2026 I.A. No. 449 of 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this interlocutory application, the petitioners seek condonation of delay of 131 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. 449 of 2026 is disposed of. Civil Review No. 75 of 2019 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2026:JHHC:8499-DB 2 6. Mr Ajit Kumar, the learned senior counsel for the review petitioners, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this review petition on behalf of the review petitioners Nos. 2 to 6. He, however, submits that the review petition may be allowed to be pursued on behalf of review petitioner No. 1. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed as withdrawn qua review petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 but allowed to continue qua review petitioner No. 1. 7. Mr. Ajit Kumar clarifies that review petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are withdrawing this review petition with liberty to take out appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Forum, if permissible. 8. Accordingly, we clarify that we are permitting the withdrawal with liberty, as prayed for, while keeping all contentions of all parties open. 9. This review petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.01.2019 passed in L.P.A. No. 538 of 2016. 10. This judgment and order were a common judgment and order disposing of L.P.A. Nos. 538 of 2016, 31 of 2017 and 480 of 2016. The respondent Umakant Sahay, in L.P.A. Nos. 31 of 2017 and L.P.A. No. 480 of 2016 had initially preferred a Special Leave Petition against the judgment and order of which review is applied for. However, this Special Leave Petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition before this Court. 11. Pursuant to the liberty, Umakant Sahay filed Civil Review Petition Nos. 92 of 2019 and 74 of 2019. Civil Review No. 92 of 2019 was disposed of by the coordinate Bench vide a detailed judgment and order 23.08.2022. Even the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nos. 5008 of 2023 against the same was dismissed. Following the same, even Civil Review Petition No. 74 of 2019 has since been dismissed. 2026:JHHC:8499-DB 3 12. The contentions now raised in this review petition are no different from those raised and considered in Civil Review Petition Nos. 92 of 2019. 13. Therefore, applying the same reasoning as in the coordinate Bench’s order dated 23.08.2022, dismissing Civil Review Petition Nos. 92 of 2019, we also dismiss the present review petition. No costs. 14. Pending Interlocutory Applications, 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