L.P.A. No.314 of 2025 (State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department & other departmental officials, and Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad Lohardaga v. Bikaram Mandal and five other original petitioners/Junior Engineers, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and its Chairman, and four Assistant Engineers (Civil)) — Division Bench (Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar), Order No.07 dated 09.03.2026. The delay of 101 days in instituting the appeal (I.A. No.4966 of 2025) was condoned as constituting sufficient cause and not inordinate. The appeal challenging the learned Single Judge's order directing promotion of respondents nos.1-6 from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer (Civil) effective from the date their juniors were considered and granted promotion, with all consequential benefits, was dismissed without costs. Grounds: (i) the letter dated 29.08.2022 from the Joint Secretary to the departmental head requiring furnishing of service history, character report, list of assets, etc., was never communicated to the original petitioners — a finding of fact in para 10 of the impugned order, never denied in the appellants' counter-affidavit; (ii) per principles under Order V Rule 20 of the CPC, substituted service by paper publication cannot be resorted to in the very first instance, and that too by a department against its own employees, and fairness required an adequate opportunity to produce documents; (iii) the petitioners were not ineligible, were eligible and fulfilled the standards for promotion, and were denied consideration only for hyper-technical considerations not of their making; (iv) Government of West Bengal v. Dr Amal Satpathi ((2024) SCC Online SC 3512), relying on Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768) at para 19, does not apply, since Dharamdeo Das holds promotion effective from the date granted (not from vacancy/post-creation), whereas the petitioners claimed and obtained promotion only from the date their juniors were promoted; (v) the impugned order was already complied with subject to the outcome of the L.P.A. — by order dated 19.02.2026 the cases went to the DPC, which found the petitioners entitled to promotion from the date their juniors were promoted; and (vi) 'no work, no pay' was inapplicable as the petitioners were always willing to work.
