Dismissed¶32

The State of Jharkhand v. Sita Ram Mahto

Jharkhand HC10 Sept 2025LPA/102/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

L.P.A. No. 102 of 2023, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 10.09.2025 by Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. and Rajesh Shankar, J.: appeal by State of Jharkhand and its higher-education officials against writ directions to verify similarity of petitioner Sita Ram Mahto's case with CWJC 3495 of 1992 (R) / LPA 158 of 2000 (R) and the order dated 09.11.2020 in W.P.(S) 2620 of 2015 (Arbind Kumar Lal), to release grant-in-aid to Gossner College, Ranchi and pay sanctioned-post salary with arrears; appeal dismissed as not maintainable since the final call rested with the State; 593-day filing delay condoned (I.A. 4517 of 2025); N.A.F.R.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed and all pending Interlocutory Applications stand closed. ¶32

The State of Jharkhand Vs Sita Ram Mahto — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal was dismissed and all pending Interlocutory Applications stand closed.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal filed by the State-side respondents against the single-judge writ directions (paras 5 and 6 of the impugned order) should be entertained by this Court. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The Court declined to entertain the appeal, finding it not maintainable on its face, because the final call on verifying the petitioner's case and extending benefits rested with the State.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 593 days in filing the appeal is condoned and I.A. No. 4517 of 2025 stands disposed of.

¶21

Key takeaways

Para-6 of the impugned order (release of sanction/grant-in-aid and payment of salary including arrears) comes into operation only if the petitioner is found similarly situated to the petitioners in the judgments referenced in para-5 of that order.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral division-bench judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dismissing L.P.A. No. 102 of 2023, by which the State of Jharkhand (with its higher-education functionaries) had challenged a single-judge writ judgment concerning petitioner Sita Ram Mahto, holder of a sanctioned post whose salary (with arrears) was to be paid by the Management of Gossner College, Ranchi out of sanction/grant-in-aid released by the State. The writ judgment had directed the respondent-authorities to verify the petitioner's factual position against CWJC No. 3495 of 1992 (R), affirmed in LPA No. 158 of 2000 (R), and the order dated 09.11.2020 in W.P. (S) No. 2620 of 2015 (Arbind Kumar Lal & Ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors), extending analogous benefits if similarity were found, with timelines of six weeks, four months and a further two months. The bench observed that para-6 of the impugned order operated only upon confirmed similarity, that the final call lay with the State, and therefore declined to entertain the appeal as prima facie not maintainable, dismissing it. A delay of 593 days in filing was condoned through I.A. No. 4517 of 2025. Marked N.A.F.R.

¶1

2025:JHHC:27508-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 102 of 2023

¶3

The State of Jharkhand.

¶4

The Principal Technical Secretary, Higher & Education Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶5

The Director, Higher Education, Higher & Technical Education Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶6

... Respondents/Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sita Ram Mahto, aged about 65 years, son of Late Anand Mahato, resident of Chunua Toli, P.O. Kanta Toli, P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi.

¶9

… Petitioner/Respondent No.1

¶10

The Management of Gossner College, Ranchi through its Secretary, Club Road, Ranchi, P.O., G.P.O, P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi.

¶11

The Ranchi University, Ranchi through its Registrar, having its office near Saheed Chowk, P.O., G.P.O.,P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.

¶12

... Respondents/Performa Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶15

--------For the Appellants: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-I Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I For Resp. No.1: Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate For the University: Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate ---------

¶16

11/Dated: 10.09.2025

¶17

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. (Oral)

¶18

I.A. No. 4517 of 2025

¶19

1. For reasons stated in the application, the delay of 593 days in

¶20

filing the appeal is condoned.

¶21

2. I.A. No. 4517 of 2025 stands disposed of.

¶22

Page 1 of 3

¶23

2025:JHHC:27508-DB

¶24

L.P.A. No. 102 of 2023

¶25

3. We really wonder why the State has filed the instant appeal, given the fact the State was only required to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the directions given in para-5 and 6 of the impugned order which read as under:-

¶26

“ 5. Be that as it may, without delving into the merits of the case, I hereby direct the respondent-authorities to verify the factual aspects/ issue involved in the present writ petition vis-àvis factual aspects/ issue involved in CWJC No. 3495 of 1992 (R) affirmed in LPA No. 158 of 2000 (R) and also order dated 09.11.2020 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2620 of 2015 (Arbind Kumar Lal & Ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors) and if the facts/ issues involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the writ petition mentioned above, the same benefits may be extended to the present writ petitioner also, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.”

¶27

6. The respondent-State is directed to release appropriate sanction/ grant-in-aid in favour of the college in question for payment of salary within a period of four months and on receipt of such amount the college authorities are directed to pay the salary to the petitioner who is holding such sanctioned post including the arrears of salary for which he is legally entitled within a further period of two months.”

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

2025:JHHC:27508-DB

¶30

4. Para-6 of the impugned order shall only come in operation in case the petitioner is found similarly situated to the petitioners referred to in the judgments in para-5 of the impugned order.

¶31

5. Since it is for the State to take the final call, we see no reason to entertain the appeal, which, on the face of it, is not maintainable.

¶32

6. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

¶33

7. All pending Interlocutory Applications shall stand closed.

¶34

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

¶35

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶36

N.A.F.R.

¶37

Manoj/Pramanik/Cp.2

¶38

Page 3 of 3

The State of Jharkhand v. Sita Ram Mahto

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Jharkhand v. Sita Ram Mahto

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kamladitya Construction P Ltd. Represdent Thro Its Director R P Singh Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue

Triloki Nath Singh Director Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue

M/S Cobra Industrial Security Force (I) Ltd, through Its Director Raju Pandey Vs Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, through Its Vice Chancellor

Small Scale Bee Hive Hard Coke Producers Association through Amit Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Coal

M/S Mangalam Jeeval Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Proprietor Deepak Kumar Mangalam Vs Union of India

Mirtunjay Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Deptt of Forest Environment and Climate Change