Dismissed¶38

Shiva Shankar Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Feb 2026LPA/77/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: M.A.C.P. interest claim; delayed payment of MACP; statutory interest; unreasonable delay; vague pleadings; service benefits; promotion; Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited (JUSNL); Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL); State of Jharkhand; writ appeal dismissed without costs; L.P.A. No. 77 of 2025; W.P.(S) No. 886 of 2022; Single Judge order dated 24.10.2024; condonation of delay I.A. No. 1579 of 2025; High Court of Jharkhand Division Bench; Rajesh Shankar.

What did the court decide?

No relief on the interest claim; the appeal is dismissed without any order for costs. Separately, condonation of the 10-day delay in filing the L.P.A. was granted via I.A. No. 1579 of 2025. ¶38

Shiva Shankar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief on the interest claim; the appeal is dismissed without any order for costs. Separately, condonation of the 10-day delay in filing the L.P.A. was granted via I.A. No. 1579 of 2025.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to interest on the alleged delayed payment/grant of his M.A.C.P. benefits, the claim made in W.P.(S) No. 886 of 2022 being challenged through this L.P.A. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

The appellant has already been granted the benefits of M.A.C.P. as well as promotion, and there is nothing on record to show that such benefits were accepted by the appellant without prejudice or under protest for non-payment of interest on the alleged delay in awarding them.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

I.A. No. 1579 of 2025 is disposed of by condoning the 10-day delay in filing the L.P.A.; the delay has been satisfactorily explained and is not inordinate.

¶21

Key takeaways

There are no details supporting the appellant's contention that the M.A.C.P. or promotion benefits were delayed unreasonably; the learned Single Judge had likewise observed that nothing was brought on record to show delay on the part of the respondents in extending the M.A.C.P. benefits, and the same position continues before the Division Bench.ratio¶31
Although the claim is for statutory interest, no statute prescribing any particular time limit or providing for interest where such time limit is exceeded has been brought to the Bench's notice; even absent a statutory time limit the respondents are expected to act within a reasonable period, but nothing on record shows any unreasonable delay in extending the M.A.C.P. or promotion benefits.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

L.P.A. No. 77 of 2025 (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Division Bench — Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar; Order No. 02 dated 02.02.2026). The appellant challenged the learned Single Judge's order dated 24.10.2024 in W.P.(S) No. 886 of 2022 rejecting his claim for interest on delayed payment of M.A.C.P. The Division Bench recorded that the appellant had already been granted the benefits of M.A.C.P. as well as promotion, with nothing on record showing that those benefits were accepted without prejudice or under protest for non-payment of interest; that there were no details establishing that the M.A.C.P. or promotion benefits were delayed unreasonably (the Single Judge had similarly found nothing on record showing delay by the respondents); and that, though the claim was styled as statutory interest, no statute prescribing a time limit or providing for interest on its breach was brought to notice. Holding that a claim for interest founded on vague pleadings alleging unreasonable delay cannot be entertained, the Bench dismissed the appeal without any order for costs. I.A. No. 1579 of 2025 was disposed of by condoning the 10-day delay in filing the L.P.A., the delay being satisfactorily explained and not inordinate.

¶1

 2026:JHHC:2613-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 77 of 2025

¶3

Shiva Shankar Mishra, S/o Late Deo Bansh Mishra, R/o T-24, Astha Regency, PO-Hehal, PS-Pandra, District-Ranchi

¶4

... ... Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶8

The Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, having its office at Kusai Colony, Ranchi

¶9

The General Manager (H.R. & G. Adm.), Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, having its office at Kusai Colony, Ranchi

¶10

The General Manager (F & A), Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, having its office at Kusai Colony, Ranchi

¶11

The General Manager, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, having its office at Sringari Complex, Canary Hill Road, Transmission Zone-5, PO & PS-Korra, District-Hazaribagh

¶12

The Manager (F & A), Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, having its office at Sringari Complex, Canary Hill Road, Transmission Zone-5, PO & PS-Korra, District-Hazaribagh

¶13

... … Respondents

¶14

-----

¶15

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶17

For the Appellant : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II For the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to Mr. Manoj Kumar, Sr. SC, JUVNL

¶18

-----

¶19

Order No. 02 Dated: 02.02.2026

¶20

I.A. No. 1579 of 2025

¶21

1. The instant interlocutory application is disposed of by condoning the delay of 10 days in filing this L.P.A.

¶22

2. The delay has been satisfactorily explained and further, the same is

¶23

also not inordinate.

¶24

3. The present interlocutory application is disposed of.

¶25

L.P.A. No. 77 of 2025

¶26

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

¶28

 2026:JHHC:2613-DB

¶29

5. The appellant challenges the learned Single Judge’s order dated 24.10.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 886 of 2022 by which the appellant’s claim for interest on delayed payment of M.A.C.P. has been rejected.

¶30

6. The records show that the appellant has been granted the benefits of M.A.C.P. as well as promotion. Further, there is nothing on record to show that such benefits were accepted by the appellant without prejudice or under protest for non-payment of interest on the alleged delay in awarding the same.

¶31

7. Even if the aspect of the absence of any protest and consequently apprehension is kept aside for the time being, there are no details based upon which the appellant contends that the M.A.C.P. or promotion benefits were delayed unreasonably. The learned Single Judge has also observed that nothing was brought on record to show that there was delay on the part of the respondents in extending the benefits of M.A.C.P. The same position continues before us as well.

¶32

8. Though the claim is for statutory interest, no statute is brought to our notice either prescribing any particular time limit or providing for interest where such time limit is exceeded. No doubt, even in the absence of any statutory relief prescribing time limit, the respondents are expected to act within a reasonable period. However, nothing is brought on record to show that there was any unreasonable delay in extending the benefits of M.A.C.P or promotion to the appellant.

¶33

9. In the above circumstances, we are unable to fault the view taken

¶34

¶35