2026:JHHC:8381 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1782 of 2026 ------ Deepak Kumar, son of Dilip Prasad Bhagat, resident of Amrapara Bazar, P.O. Amrapara, P.S. Amrapara, District Pakur, State Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 3. Director, Primary Education, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, having its office at Pakur, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, State Jharkhand. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur, District Pakur. 6. District Education Officer-cum-District Program Officer, Pakur, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur, District Pakur. 7. Block Education Extension Officer, Amrapara, P.O. Amrapara, P.S. Amrapara, District Pakur. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Sweta Shukla, AC to AAG-II ------ 02/ 23.03.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:- “(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to grant continuity in service as there is break in the service and all consequential benefits thereof. (b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the 2026:JHHC:8381 2 respondents to grant back wages to the petitioner from 14.02.2019 to 02.11.2025 as the petitioner was posted as Para Teacher in the Upgraded Middle School, Tiltaypara (Santhali), Block Amrapara, District Pakur.” 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was forced not to work as Para Teacher during the period 14.02.2019 to 02.11.2025, thus the petitioner prays for payment of his back wages. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Para Teacher in the Upgraded Middle School, Tiltaypara (Santhali), Block Amrapara, District Pakur. 4.1. The petitioner got involved in a criminal case being Maheshpur P.S. Case No.39 of 2019, for offences under Sections 302 & 120-B IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. He was apprehended and was in custody from 14.02.2019. Ultimately, vide judgment dated 23.06.2023 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.107 of 2019, the petitioner was acquitted. 4.2. The petitioner filed several applications before the respondents to reinstate him in service but as per the petitioner no decision was taken to consider his case. 4.3. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2134 of 2025, praying therein to reinstate his services. In the said writ petition, the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, was directed to take a decision in accordance with law and considering the acquittal of the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:8381 3 4.4. The District Education Officer-cum-District Program Officer, Jharkhand Education Project (JEP), Pakur, vide order as contained in Memo No.726 dated 07.08.2025, took a decision that since the petitioner has been acquitted, he can be allowed to join his services. 5. The petitioner thus prays for the salary for the intervening period during which he was kept out of service. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was in custody since 14.02.2019 till his date of release from custody on being acquitted i.e. 23.06.2023. Thus, the petitioner does not have any right to get his salary from 14.02.2019 to 23.06.2023. 7. So far as the remaining period is concerned i.e. beyond 23.06.2023, till the petitioner was allowed to join, it is an admitted fact that the appointment of Para Teachers was on contractual basis. The contract of service of the petitioner is also not on record. The respondents rather had taken a sympathetic view and allowed the petitioner to resume his service. Admittedly, the petitioner did not work for the aforesaid period. 8. Considering the fact that appointment of the petitioner was absolutely contractual in nature, this Court cannot direct the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner for the period which he had not worked. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 23rd March, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 01.04.2026