Dismissed¶17

Binod Kumar Jha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Aug 2024C.M.P./1036/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Modification of order refused; remedy lies in review petition. Discrepancy alleged in date of retirement and relief granted under order dated 19.07.2023 in W.P.(S) No. 1297 of 2019. Petitioner Binod Kumar Jha vs State of Jharkhand and Eastern Coalfields Limited (Rajapura Colliery). C.M.P. No. 1036 of 2023, Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J., decided 23.08.2024.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the order dated 19.07.2023 refused; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a review petition, if so advised. ¶17

Binod Kumar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

C.M.P. No. 1036 of 2023

¶3

Binod Kumar Jha, aged about 66 years, Son of Srinarayan Jha, Resident of Rajapura Colliery, P.O. & P.S. – Rajapura (Kumardhubi), Dist – Dhanbad, Jharkhand … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand 2. Eastern Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at Sanctoria, P.O. & P.S. Sanctoria, District Burdwan (West Bengal)

¶6

The Director (Personnel), Eastern Coalfields Ltd., having its office at Sanctoria, P.O. & P.S. Sanctoria, District Burdwan (West Bengal)

¶7

The General Manager, Rajapura Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Ltd., having its office at Rajapura Colliery, P.O. & P.S. Rajapura (Kumardhubi), Dist: Dhanbad, Jharkhand … … Opp. Parties

¶8

¶9

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶10

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate

¶11

¶12

11 /23.08.2024

¶13

The learned counsels for the parties are present.

¶14

2. This petition has been filed for modification of order dated 19.07.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.1297 of 2019.

¶15

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is discrepancy in connection with the mentioning of the date of retirement and the relief which has been granted to the petitioner by the order dated 19.07.2023.

¶16

4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the order has been passed on the basis of averments made in the writ petition, and therefore, it is not a case of simple modification of order. He submits that at best, the petitioner could have filed a review petition and that the same is also to be considered after referring to the materials available in the writ records.

¶17

5. Considering the aforesaid submission, this Court is not inclined to modify the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1297 of 2019. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to file a review petition, if so advised.

¶18

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶19

Saurav

Binod Kumar Jha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Kumar Jha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss Rimjhim Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagdish Prajapati Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Govind Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajni Kaur Vs State of Jharkhand

Ranjit Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand