2026:JHHC:11569 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 6831 of 2018 ---------- Usha Devi, W/o. Rajesh Kumar Paswan, aged about 30 years, resident of Paswan Tola, Khalasi Mohalla, Ward No. 1, Madhupur, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, Dist. Deoghar. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District Deoghar. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District Deoghar. 4. The District Social Welfare Officer, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District Deoghar. 5. The Child Development Project Officer, Madhupur, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, Dist. Deoghar. ………. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, AC to SC(L&C)-I ---------- 10/ 20.04.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for a direction upon the respondent No. 5 to reinstate the petitioner to her post as Sahayika at Anganbari Kendra, Paswantola Ward No. 1, Madhupur and also to pay her entire dues of honorarium/ remuneration from the date of her termination. 3. From the record, it appears that her termination order is annexed at Annexure-3 but there is no prayer for quashing the said order of termination. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 7818 of 2013, which was disposed of by directing the respondent-Deputy Commissioner to take a decision on the appeal/ representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. 2026:JHHC:11569 2 As per the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, for taking a decision, had made an enquiry, however, nothing is on record to suggest as to whether any decision has been passed or not. 5. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner be directed again to comply the order what was passed in W.P.(S). No. 7818 of 2013, by taking a final decision. 6. It goes without saying that the original order of termination was not quashed in earlier writ application and the same has also not been challenged in this case pursuant to the aforesaid development. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner is directed to take a final decision, as early as possible and communicate the same to the petitioner with regard to her reinstatement. Further, so far as prayer for payment of honorarium, etc. is concerned, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the concerned Officer with regard to honorarium and the said request shall be decided on the basis of records available with the respondents. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 20th April, 2026 Kunal/- Uploaded on 04.05.2026