Disposed

Dileshwar Ram v. Agriculture and Sugar Cane Development

Jharkhand HC8 Jan 2024WPC/73/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to consider his case for promotion to Plant Protection Inspector with consequential benefits. Court directed respondents to consider the application, provide hearing opportunity, and pass a reasoned order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to consider petitioner's case, afford hearing opportunity, and pass a speaking and reasoned order within four weeks.

Dileshwar Ram Vs Agriculture and Sugar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S). No. 73 of 2014

Dileshwar Ram

………… Petitioners

Versus

State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Department of Agriculture & Sugarcane Development, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand).

¶8

The Director of Agriculture, Jharkhand, Krishi Bhawan, Kanke Road, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi-834008 (Jharkhand).

¶9

The Junior Plant Protection Officer, Palamu, Belwatika, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar (Daltonganj), District Palamu-822101 (Jharkhand).

¶10

………… Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK

¶12

For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP-II

¶13

Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to GP-II

¶14

¶15

05/ 08.01.2024 Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to consider his case for regular promotion to the sanctioned and vacant post of Plant Protection Inspector with effect from 27.03.2012 with consequential benefits thereof against the post kept reserved for the eligible Scheduled Caste Category candidate.

¶16

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the representations of the petitioner are pending but the respondents have not passed any order on the same. Learned counsel further submits that suffice it would be if a direction is given to the respondents to pass reasoned order on his pending representations within a stipulated period of time.

¶17

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents very fairly submits that if this Court directs, the respondents shall pass a reasoned order on the pending representation of the petitioner.

¶18

4. In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I hereby direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner and after providing ample opportunity of hearing to him, pass a speaking and reasoned order on the pending representations of

¶19

¶20

petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, which shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶21

5. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits, as prayed for, the same may be extended to them within a further period of two weeks.

¶22

6. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶23

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶24

kunal

Dileshwar Ram v. Agriculture and Sugar Cane Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileshwar Ram v. Agriculture and Sugar Cane Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khushboo Khatoon Vs Taslim Ansari

Nagina Devi Vs Mithlesh Prasad

Chhanda Chakravorty Vs the Director D a v Public School and Ors.

Urmila Devi Vs Rural Works Department

Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Department of Home

Umeshwar Prasad Singh Vs Drinking Water and Sanitation