Partly allowed

Mrityunjay Kumar Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2026WPC/7099/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Home Guard, challenged the delay in deciding his statutory appeal against a termination order. The High Court partly allowed the writ petition, directing the Deputy Inspector General (Respondent No. 3) to treat the petition as a representation and dispose of the appeal within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 3 (Deputy Inspector General) to treat the writ petition as a representation and dispose of the pending statutory appeal against termination within six weeks.

Mrityunjay Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:27845

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (S) No. 7099 of 2026

¶4

Mrityunjay Kumar Pandey, aged about 55 years, S/o-Suresh Pandey, Resident of village Gadakhurd, P.O.-Sundipur P.S.-Kandi & District-Garhwa, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

The Director General-cum-Commandant General, Jharkhand Home Guards & Fire Fighting Services, Rajendra Chowk, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand.

¶8

The Deputy Inspector General, Home Guards and Fire Fighting Services, Jharkhand Home Guards and Fire Services, Rajendra Chowk, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, Office at Garhwa, P.O., P.S.Garhwa, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand.

¶10

The District Commandant, Jharkhand Home Guards, Office at Garhwa, P.O., P.S.-Garhwa, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand.

¶11

The Commandant, Jharkhand Home Guards, Office at Central Training Institute, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶12

Deputy Superintendent of Police-cum-District Commandant, Jharkhand Home Guards, Office at Garhwa, P.O., P.S.-Garhwa, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand. .... Respondent(s)

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Kumar Keshri, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, A.C. to G.P.-II

¶16

02/Dated: 15.09.2026

¶17

1. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order of termination, the petitioner has filed statutory appeal, which is pending before the respondent no. 3; accordingly, interest of justice would be sufficed by directing the 3^rd respondent to dispose of the appeal as early as possible.

¶18

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since no counter affidavit has been filed; as such, petitioner may approach the concerned respondent for disposal of the appeal. 3. Having regard to the fair submission of learned counsel

¶19

¶20

2026:JHHC:27845

¶21

for the petitioner, without entering into the merits of the case and without giving any finding on the order of termination, the instant writ application stands partly allowed by directing the 3^rd respondent to treat this writ application as representation and dispose of the appeal within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

4. The petitioner shall serve copy of the writ application to the 3^rd Respondent along with copy of this order for early disposal of the appeal.

¶23

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶24

SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 Nandini/uploaded

¶25

Mrityunjay Kumar Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrityunjay Kumar Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand

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