Disposed

Arvind Gurjar v. Union of India, through Its Secretary, Department of Home

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2026WPC/7062/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A CISF constable challenged the failure of his unit commandante to pass a final order on a show-cause notice and the petitioner's reply. The High Court declined to rule on the merits and instead directed the commandante to treat the writ petition as a representation and issue a reasoned, speaking order within eight weeks of receiving a copy, communicating the decision to the petitioner. Any consequential order in the petitioner's favour must follow within a further two weeks. Pending interim applications were closed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 to treat the writ petition as a representation and pass a reasoned, speaking order within 8 weeks, and if favourable, a consequential order within a further 2 weeks.

Arvind Gurjar Vs Union of India, through Its… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:28098 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P(S). No. 7062 of 2026

¶4

Arvind Gurjar, son of Kalyan Gurjar, aged about 31 years, Resident of Village Bhamai, P.S. & P.O Ambah, Morena M.P. presently posted at RSTTP, Ramagundam, Telegana ….Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Home, having its office at Room no. 113, P.O. & P.S. North Block, New Delhi-110001.

¶7

Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit PVUNL, Patratu, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, Jharkhand-829119. …..Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioners : Mr. Padmanav Shahdeo, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI : Mr. Bajrang Kumar, AC to ASGI : Mr. Aryan Anurag, AC to ASGI

¶12

¶13

04/ Dated: 15.09.2026

¶14

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying

¶16

therein for the following reliefs:

¶17

“i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), particularly a writ of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to pass final order on the Show Cause notice dated 17/07/2025 and reply thereto dated 26/07/2025.”

¶18

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is fully

¶19

entitled for the prayer made in the instant writ application; however, the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that since no counter affidavit has been filed; as such the petitioner may be directed to approach the concerned respondent by filing a fresh representation, who shall look into the matter so that the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed.

¶21

( 2026:JHHC:28098 )

¶22

5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and without going into the merits of the case, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the respondent No. 2 to look into the grievance of the petitioner by treating this writ application as representation and take a decision in the matter in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The petitioner may serve a copy of this writ application along with the relevant documents to the concerned respondent for convenience.

¶23

6. It goes without saying that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, necessary consequential order be passed within a further period of 2 weeks.

¶24

7. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.

¶25

15.09.2026

¶26

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶27

Abha/-

Arvind Gurjar v. Union of India, through Its Secretary, Department of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Gurjar v. Union of India, through Its Secretary, Department of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases