Jharkhand High Court
Janardan Prasad Sah & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 29 February, 2012
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Chief Justice, Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 406 of 2010
1. Janardan Prasad Sah
2. Kajal Kumar Patra
3. Mihir Kant Shaw
4. Samir Kumr Patra
5. Yamini Kant Mahto
6. Dwarika Nath Mahto
7. Arjun Prasad Mahto
8. Tapan Kumar Raj
9. Subhash Chandra Madina
10. Brij Bhushan Murmu
11. Himasnshu Shaker Giri
12. Uttam Kumar Pati
13. Satish Kumar Sinha
14. Prafulla Chandra Yadav
15. Ram Prasad Rana
16. Shatrughan Mahto
17. Nirmol Kumar Sinha
18. Dip Narayan Yadav
19. Praduman Sah ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
------
For the Appellants : M/s Rajiv Ranjan
Sri Ashok Kr. Yadav
For the Respondents: J.C. to G.P.II
------
Dated 29th February, 2012.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Several petitioners have joined to file this writ petition and impleaded five different Deputy Commissioners of the different districts as party-respondent and are claiming that they discharged their duties as non-formal education supervisor in different districts of the State in the year 1995 but they have not been paid honorarium. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge after observing that the grievances have been raised after 15 years and in the writ petition it has not been stated by the writ petitioners that they have submitted any representation for redressal of their grievance before the respondent-authority.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that now the reply has been filed by one of the Deputy Commissioners i.e., Deputy Commissioner of the District-East Singhbhum wherein it has been stated that the matter is under consideration at various levels and, therefore, direction may be issued to the respondents-authority to redress the grievance of the petitioners/appellants.
However, in another reply filed on behalf of Deputy Commissioner of the District- Pakur, it has been stated that none of the petitioners/appellants was in the service in the district of Pakur as alleged by the writ petitioners/appellants. Therefore, it appears that not only there is delay of 15 years but there is defect of mis-joineder of the parties as different persons, working at different places seeking relief against different Deputy Commissioners, have joined to file this writ petition. In addition to above, there appears to be several disputed questions of facts. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the dismissal of the writ petition dated 12.5.2010.
However, if the petitioners'/appellants' matter are pending before any of the respondent-authority or if the petitioners/appellants submit their respective representation along with a copy of this order within one month from today before the concerned respondent-authority for redressal of their grievance, the concerned respondent-authority may pass appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of their respective representation.
With these observations, this L.P.A. is disposed of.
(Prakash Tatia,C.J.) (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Sudhir