Akshoy Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms

2026:JHHC:931

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 4472 of 2018

Akshoy Kumar Thakur, aged about 61 Years S/O- Late Suresh Chandra Thakur, resident of-Bilasi Town, Near Shankar Cinema, P.O.- Bilasi, P.SDeoghar, Dist. Deoghar ... … Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand through the Secretory, Department of Revenue & Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi PO & PS-Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi.

¶7

2.The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O., P.S. & Dist.- Dumka.

¶8

3.The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, PO, PS & Dist.-Deoghar

¶9

Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Deoghar

¶10

Circle Officer, Devipur Block, PO-Rohini, PS- Jasidih, Dist.-Deoghar, 6. Accountant General (A&E), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist.- Ranchi ... … Respondent(s)

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, AC to GP-II For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate

¶13

¶14

Order No. 15 /Dated: 14^th January 2026

¶15

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for

¶16

the following reliefs:

¶17

“1 a. For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the part of the order as contained in order no. 33/2008 dated 01.03.2008; (Annexure-5) to the extant 'financial benefits for the period of removal from service of the petitioner has been ordered to be withheld' by the respondent authority in most arbitrary and illegal manner.

¶18

b. For the issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents to grant 1^st ACP to the petitioner in pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000, 2^nd ACP in pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and 3^rd MACP in grade pay of Rs. 4800 in place of the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000, 5000-8000 and grade pay of Rs. 4600 respectively, as the same has been given to the petitioner wrongly vide memo no. 2430 (1^st & 2^nd ACP) and 2431 (3^rd MACP) both memos are of dated 20.09.2017 (Annexure-6 & 6/1)

¶19

c. For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents to extend the monetary benefits of 1^st ACP & 2^nd ACP in pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 & 5500-9000 respectively and benefits of 3^rd MACP in grade pay of Rs. 4800.

¶20

d. For issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents for revision of pension of the petitioner and to pay the arrears incurred thereupon in lieu of grant of 1^st ACP, 2^nd ACP and 3^rd MACP in proper pay scale and grade pay respectively.

AND/OR

1

2026:JHHC:931

e. Pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.”

¶25

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the one hand, for the same and similar allegation co-employee, namely, Mr. Birendra Kumar Thakur was also dismissed but on the basis of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5896 of 2006, he was reinstated and was paid full salary and on the other hand, when the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 01.03.2008 there was a specific direction that he will not get any salary during his period of dismissal.

¶26

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner retired in the year 2017 and after taking all retiral benefits, he filed the instant writ application in September, 2018 as such this case is an after thought as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

¶27

4. In reply to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has represented several times but no order was passed and forced with this situation, he filed the instant writ application. However, he submits that the instant writ application may be disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondent that on the ground of parity, they may re-consider the part of the order dated 01.03.2008.

¶28

5. Learned counsel for the respondents does not raise objection if the petitioner approaches the concerned respondent. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondent by filing a representation who shall pass an order in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶29

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶30

14^th January 2026 Amit

¶31

Uploaded on 20/1/2026

¶32

2

Akshoy Kumar Thakur v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshoy Kumar Thakur v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudhanshu Shekhar Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand

Snehlata Vs the Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Commission, through Its Secretary

Sheela Devi Vs Welfare

Ajit Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Ministry of Rural Development

Abhinav Paul Minj Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Health