DINESH KUMAR PRADHAN vs STATE OF JHARKHAND THRO THE SECRETARY/PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY DEPTT.

2026:JHHC:32269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S) No. 4230 of 2025
Dinesh Kumar Pradhan, aged about 64 years, S/o Late
Akshaya Pradhan, resident of Village-Kudasingi, P.O.
Aamda, P.S.Kharsawan, District-Saraikela-Kharsawan.
…… Petitioner
V E R S U S
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/ Principal
Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and
Literacy Department, having office at MDI Building, Near
Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and District-
Ranchi.
3. The Regional Joint Director of Education, Kolhan Division,
Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.-Chaibasa, District- West Singhbhum.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, West
Singhbhum, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.-Chaibasa, District-West
Singhbhum. …… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
….…

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Mr. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Karamjit S. Chhabra, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV
Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, A.C. to G.A.-IV
….…..
C.A.V. ON: 29/10/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:04/11/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred for the

following reliefs in the writ petition:-
“(i) To quash and set aside the decision contained in Memo
No.2240 dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure-8) issued under the pen and
signature of District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum,
Chaibasa whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on
a non est ground.

(i) To further direct the respondents to pay the benefits of
st
1 ACP in the scale of 5000-8000 to the petitioner with effect from
nd
17.05.2003 and 2 MACP in the scale of 5500-9000 (unrevised)
and PB-II 9300-34800 with Grade Pay 4600 (Revised) with effect
from 17.05.2011 in the light of the decision taken by the Regional
Deputy Director of Education (now known as Regional Joint Director
of Education) contained in Memo No.63 dated 30.01.2019, which
was the compliance of order dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure-2) passed
in W.P.(s) No.5123 of 2014, in which the name of this petitioner
1

2026:JHHC:32269
appears at Sl. No.18.
(ii) To hold and declare that the District Superintendent of
Education (Respondent No.4) has no power and jurisdiction to
reject the claim of the petitioner as he is not the appointing
authority of the petitioner.
(iii) For any other appropriate relief or relies to which the
petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of
this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner.”



3. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that he
was appointed on 17.05.1991 on the post of Clerk in the
Education Department (now known as School Education and
Literacy Department), Government of Jharkhand. He retired on
31.05.2021 as such from the office of the District Superintendent
of Education, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. He completed 12
years of service on 17.05.2003 and 20 years of service on
17.05.2011.
st
The 1 ACP was granted to the petitioner in the scale of
nd
4500-7000 on completion of 12 years. Similarly, the 2 MACP
was granted to the petitioner in the scale of 5000-8000 on
completion of 20 years of service with effect from 17.05.2011.
st
4. As per the petitioner, he was entitled for grant of 1 ACP
nd
in the scale of 5000-8000 with effect from 17.05.2003 and 2
MACP in the scale of 5500-9000 (unrevised) and PB-II, 9300-
34800 with Grade Pay (GP) 4600 (revised) with effect from
17.05.2011.
5. When the request of the petitioner was not acceded to,
the petitioner along with others filed writ petition, which was
registered as W.P.(S) No.5123 of 2014 . The petitioner was arrayed
2

2026:JHHC:32269
as Petitioner No.18 in the said writ petition. This writ petition
was disposed of on 13.11.2017 with observation that since the
petitioners have pleaded that their case are similar to Shri
Shridhar Jha, Shri Sona Ram Deogham and Shri Awadhesh
st
Kishor who enjoyed the benefits of 1 ACP in the scale of 5000-
nd
8000 and 2 in the scale of 5500-9000 and there was a direction
to the State to file reply thereto but no reply was filed, the writ
petition was disposed of with a direction to consider all such
aspects and take a decision. It was further observed that such
decision must be taken within 6 weeks and if the petitioners are
found entitled, the benefits be extended within 4 weeks
thereafter.
6. Against the said order, L.P.A. No.153 of 2018 was filed
by the State of Jharkhand. However, in the meantime the
Regional Deputy Director of Education (RDDE), Kolhan Division,
Chaibasa passed Office Order extending the benefits by Memo
No.45 dated 31.01.2020 in which the name of this petitioner
appears at Sl. No.18. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal,
being L.P.A No.153 of 2018 was dismissed as not pressed on
03.12.2020.
7. At this stage, it is necessary to point out that the earlier
order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education was made
subject to the result of the Letters Patent Appeal, but after the
disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Office Order No.561
3

2026:JHHC:32269
dated 24.07.2023 was also issued. It was stated in the said order
that in the light of the order passed in L.P.A. No.153 of 2018 the
direction for payment is being made.
In view of the fact that the competent authority directed
for extending the benefits, the petitioner approached the District
Superintendent of Education for payment of benefits accrued to
the petitioner, as the District Superintendent of Education, West
Singhbhum, Chaibasa was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer.
The District Superintendent of Education was simply required to
follow and pay the benefits to the petitioner, but instead, he
passed the impugned order contained in Memo No.2240 dated
20.12.2024 rejecting the claim of the petitioner and hence the
writ petition has been filed challenging the same before this
Court.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.2
who is none else but the Director, Secondary Education, School
Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand.
The affidavit is sworn by the Director, Secondary Education.
Stand has been taken in the counter affidavit, inter alia, that the
Regional Deputy Director of Education, Kolhan Division,
Chaibasa has already taken a decision by Memo No.63 dated
30.01.2019 and Memo No.45 dated 31.01.2020 to pay the
benefits to the petitioner in the light of the order passed in W.P.(s)
No.5123 of 2014 and other analogues case.
4

2026:JHHC:32269
9. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the order impugned is neither
sustainable in law nor on facts. He refers paragraph no.20 of the
writ petition wherein altogether 9 grounds have been taken to
challenge the impugned order but the same has not been replied
at all in the counter affidavit. He submits further that on one
hand paragraph no.20 of the writ petition has not been replied
to and on the other hand the Director, who is the deponent of
counter affidavit filed by Respondent, admits in paragraph no.9
that the Regional Deputy Director of Education has already
taken a decision to extend the benefits to the petitioner in the
light of order passed in W.P.(s) No.5123 of 2014. Therefore, the
impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that
Regional Deputy Director of Education, Kolhan is the appointing
authority of the Class-III employee, like the petitioner, who was
posted and retired as a Clerk. District Superintendent of
Education has no power and jurisdiction to decide the claim of
the petitioner. Once the Higher Officer, who is competent to take
a decision, has already taken a decision, the District
Superintendent of Education has no business to pass the
impugned order contrary to the decision taken by the Regional
Deputy Director of Education. He, therefore, submits that the
5

2026:JHHC:32269
impugned order is fit to be set aside by extending the benefits to
the petitioner.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Mithilesh Singh, appears for the
respondents-State of Jharkhand and submits that the order
impugned is passed by District Superintendent of Education. He
submits that in the light of the order passed by this Court in
earlier round of litigation, the Regional Deputy Director of
Education passed orders but thereafter the District
Superintendent of Education has passed impugned order. He
defends the order impugned.

12. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, this Court
is of the view that once the writ petition was disposed of by this
Court in earlier round of litigation and the appeal preferred
thereagainst was dismissed as not pressed, the benefits accrued
to the petitioner must be extended to him.
13. Moreover, after the order passed by this Court contained
in Annexure-1, the high-ranking Officer, Regional Deputy
Director of Education (RDDE) has already passed orders on
30.01.2019, 31.01.2020 and 24.07.2023 extending the required
benefits to the petitioner. Once the high-ranking Officer has
passed the orders, the District Superintendent of Education was
required to follow the same and pay the benefits as he is the
Drawing and Disbursing Officer. Instead, he has passed the
impugned order without considering that the high-ranking
6

2026:JHHC:32269
Officer (the RDDE), had already decided the claim of the
petitioner along with others.
14. Moreover, from perusal of the counter affidavit and the
paragraph no.9 thereof, in particular, it appears that the State
already admits that the Regional Deputy Director of Education
(now known as Regional Joint Director of Education) has already
passed orders in Memo No.63 dated 30.01.2019 and Memo No.45
dated 31.01.2020. Once this position is accepted, the District
Superintendent of Education has no cause of action to pass the
impugned order.

15. In the light of the above facts, the impugned order
contained in Memo No.2240 dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure-8 of
the writ petition), is hereby, quashed and set aside. The
st
respondents are directed to pay benefits of 1 ACP in the scale of
nd
5000-8000 and 2 MACP in the scale of 5500-9000 (PB-II, 9300-
34800 with Grade Pay of 4600) to the petitioner with effect from
17.05.2003 and 17.05.2011 respectively.
The benefits must be extended to the petitioner within a
period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. No
order as to costs. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:04 /11/2026
Amardeep/
Uploaded
5.11.2026
7