THE JHARKHAND ACADEMIC COUNCIL, RANCHI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, NAMELY JAYANT KUMAR MISHRA v. RAM PRAKASH SAO
LPA/791/2025 · 2026-03-24
Rajesh Shankar
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4493 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4493 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:8323-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 791 of 2025
1. The Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi having its office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. – Namkum, District - Ranchi, through its Secretary, namely Jayant Kumar Mishra, aged about 58 years S/O- R C Mishra, R/O- Harmu, PO+Ps – Argora, Dist:- Ranchi.
2. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, having its office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, District - Ranchi.
3. The Joint Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, having its office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, District - Ranchi. ... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. Ram Prakash Sao, aged about 60 years, Son Laljee Sao, Resident of Gangpur, Gidhaur, Chatra, P.O. & P.S. – Chatra, District – Chatra. Writ Petitioner/Respondent
2. The State of Jharkhand. ... Respondent No.1/Respondent
---------
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
--------- For the Appellants: Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate For Resp. No.1: Party-In-Person
--------- 03/Dated: 24.03.2026 I.A. No. 15401 of 2025
1. This I.A. seeking condonation of delay of 71 days is allowed and
disposed of. L.P.A. No. 791 of 2025 With I.A. No. 4227 of 2026
2. Heard Mr Krishna Murari, the learned counsel for the appellants and Ram Prakash Sao, the respondent-writ petitioner, who appears in person. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants almost succeeded in persuading us to dispose of this Letters Patent Appeal based on a
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:8323-DB
subsequent order passed by the appellants. Were we to pass this order, we would have grievously erred and caused prejudice to the petitioner, who appears in person. Therefore, we do not appreciate such an approach of trying to secure an order from the Court in haste without disclosing true and correct facts. 4. In this case, the respondent Ram Prakash Sao instituted W.P. (S) No.5446 of 2024 seeking retirement and other benefits consequent upon his retirement from the Office of the appellants herein. When this petition came up for hearing on 03.10.2024, the counsel on behalf of the appellants made a statement that the case of the respondent herein, i.e. Ram Prakash Sao, was fully covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.1229 of 2023 and other analogous cases. He, therefore, submitted to the Court that the appellants herein would have no objection if the respondent’s writ petition were disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P. (S) No.1229 of 2023 and other analogous cases. 5. Paragraph 4 of the learned Single Judge’s order dated 03.10.2024 disposing of W.P.(S) No.5446 of 2024 is transcribed below for the convenience of reference: -
“4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that this case is fully covered by the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 1229 of 2023 and other analogous cases. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 1229 of 2023 and other analogous cases.”
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:8323-DB
6. Having made the above statement, the present appellants should not have instituted this Letters Patent Appeal to challenge the order dated
03.10.2024. The LPA, it appears, was preferred because the appellants did not comply with the learned Single Judge’s order in letter and spirit, forcing the respondent to file a Contempt petition.
In an attempt to avoid the consequences of the Contempt petition, the appellants have passed an
order denying relief to the respondent (original petitioner).
7. After denying reliefs, I.A. No. 4227 of 2026 was filed and the learned counsel for the appellants made a submission that since the appellants, herein, have fully complied with the learned Single Judge’s order dated 03.10.2024, this appeal may be disposed of as infructuous or the appellants may be granted leave to withdraw this appeal in view of the subsequent development i.e. the order declining the relief to the respondent (original petitioner)
8. Thus, clearly, the attempt was to have both this appeal as well as the Contempt petition disposed of with no relief whatsoever to the respondent (original petitioner), even though a statement was solemnly made that the respondent’s case is fully covered by the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 1229 of 2023 and other analogous cases.
9. Now, in the reasoned order, the Jharkhand Academic Council (appellants), has made a complete volte face and contended that the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1229 of 2023 and other analogous cases does not apply and is distinguishable. If there was any bona fides in such a stance, then the minimum that was expected of the Jharkhand Academic Council was that it apply to the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5446 of 2024 to retract the statement made on its behalf.
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:8323-DB
10. Only if leave were granted to retract, a different view could have been taken by the appellants. Instead, the appellants have embarked upon this misadventure solely to frustrate and overreach the orders made by this Court and to wriggle out of a solemn statement made to this Court. Even the way we were persuaded to dispose of this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellants, without being informed of the true and correct
facts, by taking undue advantage of the pressure on the docket, and that this Court does not second-guess a factual statement made by counsel, leaves much to be desired.
11. The respondent, who appeared in person, was seated behind and did not even initially realise that his case was being mentioned. Upon so realising, he pointed out that the Jharkhand Academic Council had, in analogous cases, instituted L.P.A. Nos. 344 of 2024, 345 of 2024 and 346 of 2024 before the Coordinate Bench of this Court. These appeals were dismissed by the Coordinate Bench by order dated 11.06.2025 after noticing that the Jharkhand Academic Council (appellants) had conceded in paragraph 6 of the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 through its counsel that the issue raised in the writ petitions was covered by the
judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 3162 of 2018, which was also affirmed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. Accordingly, the appeals were held as not maintainable and dismissed. These orders were also conveniently suppressed from this Court.
12. The institution of this appeal is nothing but another attempt of the same kind. After having conceded that the respondent-petitioner’s case was fully covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.1229 of 2023 and other analogous cases, the Jharkhand Academic Council has
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:8323-DB
attempted to overreach the Court’s order, deviate from its solemn statement and deny the respondent- petitioner the reliefs due to the petitioner in terms of the order disposing of W.P. (S) No.1229 of 2023 and other analogous cases.
13. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with costs of Rs. 25,000/-, which the Jharkhand Academic Council must pay to the respondent-petitioner within four weeks from today. This cost must be deposited with this Court within four weeks, with prior notice to the petitioner, who must appear in person.
14. The Chairperson of the Jharkhand Academic Council shall be personally responsible for ensuring that the costs of Rs. 25,000/- are deposited in this Court within four weeks from today. Once the costs are deposited, the Registry will pay the same to the respondent, Ram Prakash Sao, through the usual banking channels.
15. A copy of this order must be placed in Contempt Case (civil) No.54 of 2025, because we are not sure whether the appellants will place this
order before the learned Single Judge taking up the Contempt petition.
16. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. I.A. No. 4227 of 2026, which was not on the Board but was taken on Board at the request of learned counsel for the appellants, is also dismissed.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) March 24, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/ Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 26.03.2026