Disposed¶16

Sahdeo Prasad Rao v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Feb 2026WPC/33/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; W.P.(S) No.33 of 2025; Ananda Sen, J.; decided 06.02.2026. Alternative remedy / appealability objection upheld: writ petition by JUVNL employee not entertained as the challenged order is appealable under Clause 37 of the Standing Orders; petitioner directed to appeal before CMD, JUVNL within four weeks; petition disposed of; pending I.A. disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may file an appeal before the Appellate Authority (CMD, JUVNL), to be considered on merits within four weeks; pending I.A., if any, disposed of. ¶16

Sahdeo Prasad Rao Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:3171

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No.33 of 2025

¶4

Sahdeo Prasad Rao, S/o Late Bisun Rao, R/o Village- Ashna Indarwa, Ward No.5, Back Side of Gayatri Mandir, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma

¶5

.... Petitioner(s).

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶8

2.The Chairman-cum-Chief Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building (H.E.C.), P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 3.The General manager (Personnel & General Adm.), Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd, Engineering Building (H.E.C.), P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist Ranchi 4.The Deputy General Manager, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd, Engineering Building (H.E.C.), P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand 5.The Accountant General, (A&E), Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist Ranchi

¶9

… Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. -----For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate For the Resp-JUVNL : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to Sr. S.C. For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate

¶11

07/ 06.02.2026: Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

An objection is raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the order which the petitioner is challenging is appealable. He refers to the Standing Order of the Company. He submits that as per Clause 37 of the Standing Orders, all the workmen shall have the right to appeal against any order of any authority to the next Superior Officer. In this case, the Appellate Authority as per the rule is Chief Managing Director (CMD), JUVNL. Since, there is an alternative remedy, petitioner should approach the appropriate forum.

¶13

Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited.

¶14

Thus, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent- Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶15

Petitioner should file an appeal which would be considered by the Appellate Authority on merits within four weeks from today.

¶16

With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶17

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶18

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶19

06^th February, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 09 /02/2026

Sahdeo Prasad Rao v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahdeo Prasad Rao v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashmi Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manju Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Nagina Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro Its Secretary, Department of Water Resoruces

Sahdeo Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro

Asha Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohan Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand