Disposed¶26

Dilip Kumar Majhi v. the Union of India

Jharkhand HC5 May 2026WPC/3072/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to file fresh representation before Respondent Nos. 3 and 4; counting of GDS/EDMC service for old pension scheme benefits; vacancy of 2003-04 versus DPC convened in 2005; new pension scheme effective 01.04.2004; Annexure-1 promotion to Group-D; challenge to Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench (Circuit sitting at Ranchi) order dated 16.01.2026 in O.A./051/00888/2023; Article 226 Constitution of India; India Post / Postal Department respondents; High Court of Jharkhand; W.P.(S) No.3072 of 2026; disposed of without merits adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to make a representation before the competent authority (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) to agitate the ground relating to counting of service as per law. ¶26

Dilip Kumar Majhi Vs the Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to make a representation before the competent authority (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) to agitate the ground relating to counting of service as per law.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the old pension scheme by counting his service from the date of his initial induction into the Postal Department (as EDMC/GDS). +1 more

¶17

Ratio / Principle

This Court granted the writ petitioner leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to represent before the competent authority, i.e., Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, to agitate the aforesaid ground (counting of service / vacancy 2003-04, DPC 2005, NPS w.e.f. 01.04.2004) for consideration as per law.

¶24

Key takeaways

The Court allowed the writ petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty aforesaid.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Division Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad, JJ.), W.P.(S) No.3072 of 2026, decided 05.05.2026 — Dilip Kumar Majhi v. Union of India & others. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 16.01.2026 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (Circuit sitting at Ranchi) in O.A./051/00888/2023, whereby the Tribunal had passed a positive direction for counting the petitioner's service from the date of his joining as 'Gram Dak Sevak' (GDS), his grievance being entitlement to the benefit of the old pension scheme; the petitioner had been initially inducted as Extra Department Mail Carrier (EDMC) in Dhalbhumgarh Post Office and relied on Annexure-1, the order of promotion to Group-D. Counsel submitted that the vacancy was of 2003-04 but the DPC was convened in 2005, by which time the new pension scheme had been given effect from 01.04.2004 — a ground admittedly not specifically raised before the Tribunal — and sought leave to withdraw the petition to make a representation. Learned Sr. P.C for the respondents raised no objection to withdrawal. The Court granted leave to withdraw with liberty to represent before the competent authority, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, to agitate the ground as per law, and disposed of the writ petition. No issue was adjudicated on merits.

¶1

2026:JHHC:13553-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3072 of 2026

¶3

Dilip Kumar Majhi, Aged about 67 years, S/o Late Maheshwar Manjhi, Resident of Narinshgarh, Dhalbhumgarh, P.O + P.S-Dhalbhumgarh, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand .…… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The Union of India

¶6

2.The India Post through its Director General (Postal Service), P.OChasnalla, PS-Patherdih, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

¶7

3.The Chief Postmaster General, Jharkhand Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan, PO + PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶8

4.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Singhbhum Division, Bistupur, PO + PS-Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 5.The Senior Postmaster, Jamshedpur H.O., PO + PS-Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 6.The Sub-Postmaster, Dhalbhumgarh S.O., P.O + PS-Dhalbhumgarh, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

¶9

7.The Branch Post Master, Baliagari, Dhalbhumgarh S.O., PO + PSDhalbhumgarh, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

¶10

……. Respondents

¶11

---------

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶13

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate : Mr. Aaryaman Relan, Advocate For the UOI : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, Sr. P.C : Mr. Romit Kumar, Advocate

¶14

-----------

¶15

02/Dated:05^th May, 2026

¶16

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directed against the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the ‘Central Administrative Tribunal’ Patna Bench, Circuit sitting at Ranchi in O.A./051/00888/2023 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has tried to pass positive direction in favour of the writ petitioner for counting the period of his service since the date of his joining as ‘Gram Dak Sevak’ (GDS).

¶17

It has been submitted by Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner that the whole grievance of the writ petitioner was to get the benefit of old pension scheme and that is the reason the prayer was made to count his service from the date when he was inducted in service initially as

¶18

¶19

2026:JHHC:13553-DB

¶20

Extra Department Mail Carrier (EDMC) in the Postal Department of India in Dhalbhumgarh Post Office. He has also pointed out the fact by referring to Annexure-1 which is the order of promotion to the post of Group-D category.

¶21

The argument has been advanced by referring to Annexure-1 that the vacancy although was of the year 2003-04 but purposely the DPC was convened in the year 2005 and in the meanwhile, new pension scheme has been given effect to with effect from 01.04.2004.

¶22

Although he has admitted that he has not made specific case on this ground before the Tribunal, now he intends to make an appropriate representation before the authority for consideration of the aforesaid ground. He, therefore, has sought for leave of this Court to withdraw this writ application by granting such liberty.

¶23

Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, learned Sr. P.C for the respondents, has got no objection so far as withdrawal of the case is concerned.

¶24

This Court, considering the submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner, is granting such leave to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to represent before the competent authority, i.e., the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to agitate the aforesaid ground for his consideration as per law.

¶25