Dismissed¶25

Shambhu Nath Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand

Horizontal reservation – Dependents of Freedom Fighters – Mandamus

Jharkhand HC17 Jun 2026WPC/3683/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) No. 3683 of 2023, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 17.06.2026 by Ananda Sen, J. (neutral citation 2026:JHHC:17787). Keywords: horizontal reservation; dependents of Freedom Fighters; Freedom Fighter Pension; Banshi Pandey; mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; limits on judicial direction to frame policy; representation dated 12.07.2022; no law/rule/policy in Jharkhand; comparison with other States confers no legal right; writ petition dismissed; no monetary relief.

What did the court decide?

It is admitted that there is presently no law, rule, or policy in the State of Jharkhand providing horizontal reservation in government services for dependents of Freedom Fighters. ¶20

Shambhu Nath Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.2, should be directed to provide horizontal reservation in Government Services to the dependents of the petitioner's father Late Banshi Pandey, a Freedom Fighter. +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

Mere submission of a representation does not entitle the petitioner to the relief sought in the present writ petition.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

It is admitted that there is presently no law, rule, or policy in the State of Jharkhand providing horizontal reservation in government services for dependents of Freedom Fighters.

¶20

Key takeaways

Granting reservation is a matter of government policy.ratio¶21
Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot direct the State to make a new policy or create reservation in a category that is not already provided in Government Service.ratio¶21
The fact that some other States provide such benefits does not give the petitioner a legal right to claim the same in Jharkhand.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Horizontal reservation - Dependents of Freedom Fighters - Mandamus - Petitioner, son and dependent of late Banshi Pandey, a Freedom Fighter who drew Freedom Fighter Pension and died on 06.06.2001 (pension thereafter received by his widow), sought a writ directing Respondent No.2 to provide horizontal reservation in Government Services to Freedom Fighter dependents; his representation dated 12.07.2022 was left undecided. Respondents stated no scheme/policy existed in Jharkhand for such reservation. Held (Ananda Sen, J., 17.06.2026): granting reservation is a matter of government policy; under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Court cannot direct the State to make a new policy or create a reservation category not already provided in Government Service; benefits provided by other States confer no legal right to claim the same in Jharkhand; mere submission of a representation does not entitle the petitioner to the relief sought. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

2026:JHHC:17787

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3683 of 2023

¶3

Shambhu Nath Pandey, aged about 49 years, son of Late Banshi Pandey, resident of Shiv Sagar Road, Domchanch, P.O.-Domchanch Bazar, P.S.-Domchanch, District- Koderma. ....Petitioner(s).

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. … Respondent(s).

¶7

¶8

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhilash Kumar, AC to GP-II

¶11

05/17.06.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

¶12

i. For issuance of a writ or a writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding / directing upon the Respondents particularly, Respondent No.2 to provide horizontal reservation in Government Services to the dependents of his father Late Banshi Pandey, who was the Freedom Fighter and the petitioner and family members are the dependents of Late Banshi Pandey;

¶13

ii. Further prays for any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner and family members are entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶14

The fact of the case is that the petitioner's father, late Banshi Pandey, was a Freedom Fighter and was receiving Freedom Fighter Pension. After his death on 06.06.2001, his wife continued to receive the pension and related benefits. The petitioner states that several States provide horizontal reservation in government employment to the dependents of Freedom Fighters. Seeking similar benefits in Jharkhand, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.07.2022 before the concerned authorities, but no decision has been taken thereon.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dependents of late Banshi Pandey, being the family members of a

¶16

¶17

2026:JHHC:17787

¶18

Freedom Fighter, are entitled to consideration for horizontal reservation in government services, particularly when similar benefits are being provided in several other States. He further submits that the respondents have failed to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner on 12.07.2022 and have remained inactive despite the passage of a substantial period of time. He further submits that denial of consideration for such reservation, while similar benefits are available in neighbouring States, is arbitrary and unreasonable.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that presently there is no such scheme/ policy prescribed by the State Government to provide reservation to the dependents of freedom fighter in the services of State Government of Jharkhand. He further submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is related to policy decision of the State and presently there is no such policy of the State Government to provide any kind of reservation in the category demanded by the petitioner.

¶20

After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the petitioner’s father was already receiving freedom fighter pension and after his death, his wife, i.e, mother of the petitioner received the same. Further, relief sought by the petitioner is a direction upon the State Government to provide horizontal reservation in government services to the dependents of Freedom Fighters. However, it is admitted that there is presently no law, rule, or policy in the State of Jharkhand providing such reservation.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, I am of the view that granting reservation is a matter of government policy. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot direct the State to make a new policy or create reservation in a category that is not already provided in Government Service. The fact that some other States provide such benefits does not give the petitioner a

¶22

¶23

2026:JHHC:17787

¶24

legal right to claim the same in Jharkhand. Mere submission of a representation does not entitle the petitioner to the relief sought in the present writ petition.

¶25

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed .

¶26

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶27

17.06.2026 Tanuj/CP-2

¶28

Uploaded on 24.06.2026

¶29

Shambhu Nath Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambhu Nath Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anup Ranjan Vs Adityapur Municipal Corporation, through Its Administrator

Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited, Represented through Its Authorized Officer, Debasish Das Vs State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa

Manoj Singh @ Raghwendra Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Shipra Shikha Vs Chief Manager and Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Rosarb, Ranchi

Aditi Vs Central Board of Secondary Education through Its Regional Officer

M/S Express Food Services - Itarsi through Its Manager Damodar Pandit Vs Union of India through Chairman and Chief Executive Office, Railway Board