The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6042 of 2015 1. Manjula Palit wife of Shiv Kumar Jha, residing at Village Vikas Neori More, P.O.- Vikas, P.S.- Kanke, District- Ranchi, Presently working as Lady Extension Officer at the office of Block Development Officer, Silli Block, Ranchi 2. Munni Kachhap wife of Jhari Kachhap, residing at Bara Ghagra, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi, Presently working as Lady Extension Officer at the office of Block Development Officer, Torpa Block, District- Khunti 3. Pushplata Hembrom wife of Dr. Pradeep Baski, residing at Flat No. 103, Diocesan Village- Siramtoli, P.O. & P.S.- Chutia, Distt.- Ranchi, Presently working as Lady Extension Officer at the office of Block Development Officer, Chanho Block, Ranchi 4. Kanak Kumari wife of Srinivas, residing at Sarvodaya Nagar, Dam site, P.O.- Ranchi, P.S.- Gonda, Distt.- Ranchi, Presently working as Lady Extension Officer at the office of Block Development Officer, Ratu Block, Ranchi 5. Pramodini Toppo wife of Ajit Tigga, residing at Kadru Kumhartoli, P.O. & P.S.- Ashok Nagar, Distt.- Ranchi, Presently working as Lady Extension Officer at the office of Block Development Officer, Simdega Block, Simdega 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, -Versus- … … Petitioners Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Distt.- Ranchi 4. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Distt.- Ranchi 5. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Ranchi, Distt. Ranchi 6. The Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.- Ranchi, Distt.- Ranchi … … Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 6631 of 2010 Clara Tete, D/o Late Julious Tete, R/o Sonua Block, West Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S.- Sonua, Jharkhand … … Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand 3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 5. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi 6. The Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency, West … … Respondents Singhbhum With 2 W.P. (S) No. 443 of 2011 Navneet Topno S/o Late Niranjan Topno, Naya Hulhundu, Shanti Nagar, HUlhundu, P.O.- Hulhundu, P.S.- Tupudana, Ranchi … … Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, 3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 5. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, 6. The Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency, … … Respondents Ranchi With W.P. (S) No. 1227 of 2011 1. Smt. Manju Rani Prasad, wife of Shri Shishir Kumar Verma, resident of Simdega, P.O., P.S. & District- Simdega 2. Smt. Albina Dungdung, wife of Shri Samuel Mundu, resident of Village, P.O. & P.S.- Bolwa, District- Simdega 3. Smt. Kamla Kumari, wife of Shri Jagdeo Nayak, resident of Kolebira, P.O. & P.S.- Kolebira, District- Simdega 4. Smt. Merry Fulgieseia Lakra, wife of Shri Uday Khalkho resident of Bano, P.O. & P.S.- Bano, District- Simdega 5. Smt. Kamla Kumari, wife of Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, resident of Thethai, P.O. & P.S. - Thethai, District- Simdega … … Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 3. Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- … … Respondents Ranchi With W.P. (S) No. 2008 of 2011 Kanchan Srivatava wife of Rajiv Ranjan Srivastava, Resident of Near Jaipal Singh Stadium, Ranchi, Post Office- Kutchery, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand -Versus- Petitioner … … 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 4. The Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 3 5. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 6. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 7. The Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency, Khuti, District- Khuti, Ranchi 8. Block Development Officer, Murhu Block, Khunti, P.O. & P.S.- … … Respondents Khunti, District- Khunti With W.P. (S) No. 4486 of 2011 Ram Charitra Mehta S/o Late Jageshwar Mehta, R/o Chandwa, P.O. & P.S.- Chandwa, District- Latehar Petitioner … … -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Distt.- Ranchi 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Distt.- Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 4. The Principal Accountant General, Lekha House, Doranda, Ranchi 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Latehar … … Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 4509 of 2011 Bachan Kumar Jaiswal son of Late Durga Prasad Jaiswal, resident of Chando, P.O.- Chando, P.S.- Peterbar, District- Bokaro, at present residing at Kasmar, P.O. & P.S.- Kasmar, District- Bokaro … … Petitioner 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Executive Engineer, Tenughat Dam Division No.111, P.O.- -Versus- Tenughat, P.S.- Peterbar, District- Bokaro 3. Superintending Engineer, Tenughat Dam Circle No.I, P.O.- Tenughat, P.S.- Peterbar, District- Bokaro 4. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribag, District- Hazaribag 5. Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi 6. Special Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi 7. Chairman, District Rural Development Authority, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribag, District- Hazaribag 8. Department of Planning, Development & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi 9. Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Bokaro … … Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 6226 of 2011
Legal Reasoning
1. Smt. Mala Ghosh wife of Sri Birendra Kumar Das, resident of 4 Pirpainti Road, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District- Godda 2. Smt. Bageshwari Choudhary wife of Sri Madhav Chandra Choudhary, resident of Saketpuri Colony, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District- Godda 3. Smt. Manju Singh wife of Dr. Gauri Shankar Singh, resident of Bhagalpur Road, Naya Tola, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District- Godda 4. Smt. Meera Kumari wife of Sri Ratan Kumar Jha, resident of Satya Nagar, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District- Godda 5. Smt. Pushpa Kumari wife of Shri Brahmdeo Choudhary, resident of Shantinagar, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District- Godda … … Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, H.E.C., P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 3. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, H.E.C., P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, H.E.C., P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, H.E.C., P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- … Respondents Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi … With W.P. (S) No. 6813 of 2013 Suresh Ram S/o Late Mahesh Baitha, R/o Garu, P.O. & P.S- Garu, District- Latehar Petitioner … … -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through its chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Distt.- Ranchi 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 4. The Principal Accountant General, Lekha House, Doranda, Ranchi 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Latehar … … Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 3417 of 2015 Smt. Sashi Prabha wife of Dev Shankar Prasad, Resident of Anuraj Palace, Kishor Ganj, Road No.1, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.- Argora, District- Ranchi Petitioner … … -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, The Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 5 3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 4. The Spl. Secretary, Rural Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 5. The Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 6. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, Court Compound, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Raqnchi 7. The Managing Director, District Rural Department Agency, Court Compound, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi … … Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 42 of 2016 1. Anita Kumari wife of Bimlendu Kumar, Daughter of S.P. Verma, resident of S.K. Ghosh Road, Puradaha, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) 2. Maria Soren wife of Sri Bablu Murmu, resident of Village Jiyajore, P.O.- Sultanatikar, P.S.- Hansdiha, District- Dumka (Jahrkhand) 3. Kalapana Kumari wife of Balanand Jha, Daughter of Late Sharda Charan Mishra, resident of 22A, Pokhnarila, Pandit B.N. Jha Path, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) 4. Uma Chaurasia, Daughter of Sri Ram Shankar Chaurasia, resident of Zila School Road, P.O. & P.S.- Dumka, District- Dumka (Jharkhand) 5. Nibha Verma wife of Sri Bharat Bhushan Prasad, Daughter of Lala Shivchandra Prasad, resident of Mohalla Rajendra Nagar, Purandaha, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) Petitioners … … -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 3. District Rural Development Authority, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) 4. Development Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) 5. Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) … … Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 418 of 2016 Mrs. Mamta Sinha, wife of Radhya Shyam Sinha, At present Lady Extension Officer, Ichak Block, Hazaribag, Resident of Sabarmati, Ramchandra Colony, Shivpuri More, Lohsingna More, Hazaribag, P.O., P.S. & District- Hazaribag … Petitioner … 1. The State of Jharkhand -Versus- 6 2. The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 4. The Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 5. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 6. The Secretary, Finance Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 7. The Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag, P.O., P.S. & District- Hazaribag 8. The District Development Commissioner-cum-Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency, Hazaribag, P.O., P.S. & District- Hazaribag 9. Block Development Officer, Ichak Block, Hazaribag, P.O., P.S. & … … Respondents District- Hazaribag With W.P. (S) No. 1352 of 2016 1. Sita Ram Prasad son of Sri Biphan Ram, resident of Village & P.O.- Basna, P.S.- Nawa Bazar, District- Palamau, PIN- 822124 2. Sunil Kumar son of Kameshwar Prasad, resident of Village- Nimia, P.O.- Sudna, P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamau, PIN- 822102. 3. Nanhe Mian son of Late Abdul Wahid, resident of Nawatoli, Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamau, PIN- Petitioners 822101 … … -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi 3. The Additional Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi 4. The Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medininagar, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamau 5. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Palamau at Medininagar, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamau 6. Deputy Development Commissioner, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Palamau at Medininagar, P.O. & P.S.- … … Respondents Daltonganj, District- Palamau. With W.P. (S) No. 2838 of 2016 Mrs. Cresentia Back D/o Luckes Back, C/o Sushil Minz, R/o Kokar Pahantoli, P.O. & P.S.- Bariyatu, Ranchi. At Present Lady Extension Officer, Gumla, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.- Gumla, Jharkhand … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand -Versus- 7 2. The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 4. The Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 5. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 6. The Secretary, Finance Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 7. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, Ranchi 8. The District Development Commissioner-cum-Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- … … Respondents Kotwali, Ranchi. With W.P. (S) No. 2763 of 2017 1. Nutan Bala W/o Sri Ranjan Kumar Karn, Resident of Cooperative Colony, Plot No.222, At + P.O.- B.S. City, Sector- II, City Police Station, District- Bokaro 2. Manu Ghosh W/o Sri Arun Kumar Das, Resident of C/o Pradip Kumar Singh, At: Rajwardih, P.O.- Bandhdih, P.S.- Jaridih, District- Bokaro 3. Mira Kumari W/o Sri Uma Dev Narayan, Resident of Jaridih, P.O. & P.S.- Jaridih, District- Bokaro 4. Alpana Bharti W/o Sri Pankanj Kumar Anandmurti, Resident of Alpana Bharti, 21, Fortune City (Aasangi), Adityapur, P.O. & P.S.- Aditypur, District- Seraikela-Kharsawan 5. Indu Kumari W/o Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Resident of Qtr. No. 233, Sector 1/C, P.O.- Sector-1, P.S.- City Police Station, district Bokaro 6. Kamla Zarika W/o Sri Krishna Kumar Bari, Resident of Regency C 3/4 A, Kadma, P.O. & P.S.- Kadma, District- Jameshedpur 7. Kanak Prabha Singh W/o Lalan Singh, Resident of Flat No.22, Post Office Road, P.O.- Mango, P.S.- Mango, District- Jameshadpur Petitioners … … -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Jharkhand, Ranchi, At: Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, At: Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, At: Camp-2, B.S. City, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro, District- Bokaro 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan, At + P.O. + P.S.- Seraikella, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro, At: Camp-2, B.S. City, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro, District- Bokaro 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan, At + P.O. + P.S.- Seraikella, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan … … Respondents With 8 W.P. (S) No. 6508 of 2017 \ Vijay Ranjan Sinha S/o Late Rajiv Ranjan Sinha, Mohalla Kund, Chandra Niwas, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj, Palamau … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi, -Versus- P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 4. The Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 5. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 6. The Under Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 7. The Secretary, Finance Department, State of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 8. The Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.- Chaibasa, Distt.- West Singhbhum 9. The District Development Commissioner-Cum-Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency, P.O. & P.S.- … … Respondents Chaibasa, Distt.- West Singhbhum With W.P. (S) No. 6666 of 2017 1. Smt. Mala Ghosh wife of Sri Birendra Kumar Das, resident of Pirpainti Road, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District- Godda 2. Smt. Bageshwari Choudhary wife of Sri Madhav Chandra Choudhary, resident of Saketpuri Colony, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District- Godda 3. Smt. Manju Singh wife of Dr. Gauri Shankar Singh, resident of Bhagalpur Road, Naya Tola, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District- Godda 4. Smt. Meera Kumari wife of Sri Ratan Kumar Jha, resident of Satya Nagar, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District- Godda 5. Smt. Pushpa Kumari wife of Shri Brahmdeo Choudhary, resident of Shantinagar, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District- Godda … … Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, H.E.C., P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, H.E.C., P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, H.E.C., P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District- Godda 5. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, H.E.C., P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi … … Respondents 9 With W.P. (S) No. 433 of 2020 Smt. Amita Lal, aged about 60 years, W/o Pradip Kumar Prasad, R/o Peace Road, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi, at present working as Lady Extension Officer, Mandar Block, P.O. & P.S.- Mandar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand Petitioner … … 1. The State of Jharkahnd 2. The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & -Versus- P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. The Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 5. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 6. The Under Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 7. The Secretary, Finance Department, State of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 8. The District Development Commissioner-cum-District Rural Development Agency, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, … … Respondents District- Ranchi, Jharkhand --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Vijay Ranjan Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate : Ms. Nidhi Rani, Advocate : Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate : Ms. Anjali Sinha, Advocate : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC III Ms. Neha Pandey, A.C. to Sr. SC III (In W.P.(S). No.6508 of 2017) Mr. Apoorva Singh, A.C. to S.C. (Mines) II (In W.P.(S). No.2838 of 2016) Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, A.C. to G.A. III (In W.P.(S). No.6813 of 2013) Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A. I Mr. Chandan Tiwari, A.C. to G.A. I (In W.P.(S). No.2763 of 2017) Mr. Uttam Kumar Das, A.C. to G.P VI Mr. Abhishek Roy, A.C. to GP VI (In W.P.(S). No.1352 of 2016) Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. S.C.I 10 : Ms. Priyanka Boby, A.C. to Sr. S.C. I (In W.P.(S) No.443/2011, W.P.(S) No.4509/2011, & W.P. (S) No.6226/2011) : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, S.C. VI Ms. Ruby Yadav, A.C. to SC VI Ms. Deepika Jojowar, A.C. to S.C. VI (In W.P. (S) No.418/2016) Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, A.C. to G.P II Mr. Abhilash Kumar, A.C. to G.P II (In W.P. (S) No.1227/2011) : Ms. Archana Kumari, A.C. to AAG V (In W.P. (S) No.2008 of 2011) : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P V : Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, A.C. to GP V (In WP(S) No.6631/2010 & WP(S) No.4486/2011) Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C. Mines III Mrs. Rukmini Kumari, A.C. to S.C. Mines III Mr. Faisal Allam, A.C. to S.C. Mines III Mr. Nitesh Kumar, A.C. to S.C. Mines III Mr. Ashish Kumar, A.C. to S.C. Mines III (In WP(S) No.433 of 2020) Mr. Anuj Burman, A.C. to G.A IV (In WP(S) No.42 of 2016) Ms. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to Sr. SC II (In WP(S) No.6666 of 2017) : Mr. Shahid Khan, Advocate (In WP(S) 6042 of 2015) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C. (L&C) II : Mr. Ashish Shekhar, A.C. to S.C. (L&C) II : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)II (In WP(S). No.3417 of 2015) For the Accountant General: Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Adv. --- 38/19.05.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the following reliefs:- W.P. (S) No. 6042 of 2015 To issue appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction / (i) directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Letter No. 5686/Ranchi dated 02.11.2015 issued by the office of District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Ranchi whereby and whereunder the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) given to the petitioners (Lady Extension Officer) have been directed to be cancelled within two weeks without assigning any reason which cannot be done in the eye of law as because these petitioners are working on the post of Lady Extension Officer which was created and sanctioned by the Department of Rural Development during the time of unified Bihar and not by District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), as it appears from the letter (ii) For quashing the Letter No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018 issued by the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi whereby and whereunder a policy decision has been taken against the petitioners by framing the service condition which is against the mandate of law and arbitrary in view of the fact that these petitioners were appointed on the basis of the recommendation of Selection Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner and their appointment was made as per the guidelines issued by Personnel and Administrative Reforms Departments and they were also admitted to 11 annual increment after passing Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and subjected to G.P.F. contribution getting pension and other pensionary benefits. (iii) For further direction to Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 to make the proper service condition Rule regarding Lady Extension Officer as has been done by the State of Bihar as mentioned in Annexure-9. (iv) For further hold and declare that in the given facts and circumstances the employees working as Lady Extension Officer are Government employees because these posts had been sanctioned and they are not created by District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) and they are entitled to the benefits as applicable to Government employee. (v) For further direction to Respondent to release the current salary of the Petitioner No.4 (Kanak Kumari) which has been stopped since July 2015 without assigning any reason and without the order of any competent authority in this regard. W.P. (S) No. 6631 of 2010 (a) For direction upon the respondents to provide the petitioner the status of govt. servant in the matters of pay protection and other benefits as they are getting the benefits of G.P.F., pension, etc. in case of certain employees also. (b) For direction upon the respondents to create cadres of the petitioner vis-à-vis other similarly placed persons. W.P. (S) No. 443 of 2011 (a) For direction upon the respondents to provide the petitioner the status of govt. servant in the matters of pay protection and other benefits as they are getting the benefits of G.P.F., pension, etc. in case of certain employees also. (b) For direction upon the respondents to create cadres of the petitioner vis-à-vis other similarly placed persons. W.P. (S) No. 1227 of 2011 (i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ/Order/Direction for quashing the Office order being Office Order No.21 dated 03.02.2011 (Annexure-10) issued under the signature of respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder the claims of the petitioners, being the Lady Extension Officers, for declaring them to be Government Servants has been declined and for quashing the Letter No.5298 dated 18.102017 issued by the Rural Development Department (Annexure-13) followed by Office Order dated 24.10.2017 (Annexure-14) and the Resolution issued by the Respondent No.2 under Memo No.1845 dated 16.05.18 (Annexure-22). (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to recognize the petitioners as Government servants by granting them all consequential service benefits as well as monetary benefits including retirement benefits within a specified time. W.P. (S) No. 2008 of 2011 (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order(s) or direction(s) particularly, a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office Order No. 21 dated 3.2.2011 issued under the signature of Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand 12 whereby and whereunder decision has been taken not to give the status of government servant to the working Lady Extension Officers. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents give equal status to the petitioner, who is working as Lady Extension Officer, at par with the other government employees and to release all consequential benefits at par with the regular government employees alongwith interest. (iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ / writs or order / orders or direction / directions for quashing the letter / order dated 30.09.2015 bearing no. 1238 (ii) issued by the Respondent No.8, being the Block Development. Officer, Murhu at Khunti whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been illegally and arbitrarily directed to return/ deposit the amount of Rs.12,46,069/- (Rupees twelve lakhs forty-six thousand and sixty- nine), paid as gratuity and leave encashment, prior to 08.10.2015 with the Block Nazir so that the said sum can be deposited in the state treasury. (iv) For the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ / writs or order / orders or direction / directions upon the respondents to forthwith pay to the petitioner his entire retiral dues including pension, etc. alongwith statutory interest as the same has been illegally and arbitrarily withheld by the respondents. W.P. (S) No. 4486 of 2011 For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the (a) illegal order passed by the respondents vide No.21 dated 03.02.2011 followed by Letter No.3261 dated 15.06.2011 and 699/DRDA dated 16.07.2011 whereby the family pension has been stopped as because the post of the petitioner's wife (died in harness) was not a govt. post and has also been asked to deposit the entire family pension amount received by the petitioner till date. (b) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to explain before this Hon'ble Court as to why the post of Lady Extension Officer has been treated as govt. posts, been suddenly started treating it as non govt. post / post of autonomous body, although there are several orders of this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Patna High Court directing the govt. to take policy decision in the cases of the petitioner's wife and several others. (c) For issuance of direction upon the respondents to give the benefit of equal pay for equal work to that, of Extension Officers as it was sanctioned by the then State of Bihar, for the same function. W.P. (S) No. 4509 of 2011 (i) To make pensionary benefits to the petitioner i.e. Pension, Gratuity, Provident Fund, etc. as per the other workers who were similarly situated. (ii) To pay the benefits of A.C.P. to which he is legally entitled and (iii) To pay deputation allowances as per legal entitlement. W.P. (S) No. 6226 of 2011 A writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate (a) writ(s), order(s), direction(s) be issued for quashing the Office Order No.21 dated 3.2.2011 issued under the signature of Special Secretary 13 to the Government, Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand, as find contained in Annexure-2 whereby it was decided that there was no justification in giving status of government servant to the Lady Extension Officers (for short hereinafter referred to as “LEOs”) working at Block level under the different District Rural Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as “DRDA” in short); (b) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ / direction / order be issued commanding the respondent-authorities to extend the same treatment to the petitioners as has been given to similarly situated LEOs by the Government of Bihar through Department of Rural Development vide its decision contained in Memo No. 6479 dated 27.7.09 issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary to the Government, as find Contained in Annexure-1; For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / direction(s) and/or (c) order(s) commanding the respondent-authorities to frame appropriate rules for controlling the cadre of LEOs as has been done in the case of similarly situated LEOs who were appointed together with the petitioners, but were appointed together with the petitioners, but were allotted Bihar as a result of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. For quashing the Letter No. 5686 dated 02.11.2015 and Letter (d) No. 5182 dated 31.08.2013, whereby and whereunder by virtue of Letter No. 5089 dated 26.08.2013 issued by Rural Development Department, the A.C.P and M.A.C.P granted to the Lady Extension Officers such as petitioner has been directed to be withdrawn within 15 days from the date of issue of the letter dated 02.11.2015. For quashing of the resolution contained in Memo No. 1845 (e) dated 16.05.2018 issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department whereby and whereunder though considering the post of Lady Extension Officer on which the petitioners had been working to be sanctioned, but has been declined to regularize and absorb the petitioner as government servant in permanency and has declined to extend equitable benefits and pensionary dues to the petitioners. W.P. (S) No. 6813 of 2013 For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the (a) illegal order passed by the respondent vide No.21 dated 03.02.2011 followed by Letter No.3257 dated 15.06.2011 and 698/DRDA dated 16.07.2011, whereby the family pension has been stopped as because the post of the petitioner’s wife (died in harness) was not a govt. post and has also been asked to deposit the entire family pension amount received by the petitioner till date. (b) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent to explain before this Hon’ble Court as to why, the post of Lady Extension Officer, has been treated as govt. posts, been suddenly started treating it as non govt. post/post of autonomous body, although there are several order of this Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble Patna High Court directing the govt. to take policy decision in the cases of the petitioner’s wife and several others. (c) For issuance of direction upon the respondent to give the benefit of equal pay for equal work to that, of Extension Officers as it was sanctioned by the then State of Bihar, for the same function. 14 W.P. (S) No. 3417 of 2015 For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, (a) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office Order No. 21 dated 3.2.2011 issued under the signature of Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder decision has been taken not to give the status of government servant to the working Lady Extension Officers. (b) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to give equal status to the petitioner, who is working as Lady Extension Officer, at par with the other government employees and to release all consequential benefits at par with the regular government employees alongwith interest. W.P. (S) No. 42 of 2016 (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including the writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Letter No. 5182 dated 31.08.2013 (Annexure-9/1) wherein it has been communicated by the Rural Development Department that the Lady Extension Officers including the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of ACP and MACP and subsequently for quashing the Letter No. 5686(Anu.) dated 02.11.2015 contained in Memo No. 5686 dated 03.11.2015 (Annexure-9) under the signature of Special Secretary, whereby and whereunder the Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand has been pleased to direct the Deputy Development Commissioners of different districts to comply with the in Departmental Letter No.5182 dated direction contained 31.08.2013, cancelling the benefits of ACP and MACP granted to the Lady Extension Officers including petitioners; (b) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction including writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 1937/G Gra.V.Abhi dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure-10) issued under the signature of Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the benefits of ACP extended to the petitioners has been cancelled with immediate effect and the Establishment Assistant (Bill Clerk) has been directed to initiate process for recovery of benefit extended under ACP and MACP; (c) For issuance of further writ, order or direction including writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter bearing No.6622 dated 21.12.2015(Annexure-12), whereby and whereunder the representation submitted by the petitioners has been impliedly rejected and the Deputy Development Commissioner has been directed to take action in terms of the earlier order contained in Departmental Letter No. 5686 dated 02.11.2015 and further it is made clear that if due to delay in compliance of departmental direction, the petitioners obtain an order of status quo from this Hon’ble High Court, the Deputy Development Commissioner shall be liable for the same; (d) For issuance of further writ, order or direction declaring that since the petitioners, being Lady Extension Officers, are Government Employees are entitled to the benefits of ACP / MACP, as has been rightly extended to them from time to time; 15 (e) Issuance of an appropriate writ / order / direction for quashing the letter contained in Memo No. 01-39 (DRDA/2010/52980 Gr.Vi, Ranchi dated 18.10.2017 (Annexure-13/A), whereby and whereunder a decision has been taken in view of Clause 10 of Memo No. 217 dated 18.01.2017 of the Finance Department that the Lady Extension Officers will not be entitled for the 7th Pay Revision; (f) Upon quashing of aforesaid letter, a further writ, order or direction be issued directing the respondents to consequently fix the pay scale and release salary accordingly; (g) During the pendency of this writ petition, operation of impugned circular contained in Memo no. 01-39 (DRDA/2010/52980 Gr.Vi, Ranchi, dated 18.10.2017 (Annexure-13/A) may be ordered to be stayed; W.P. (S) No. 418 of 2016 (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office Order No. 21 dated 3.2.2011(Annexure-9), issued under the signature of Special Secretary, Rural Development, Govt. of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder decision has been taken not to give the status of Government servant to the working Lady Extension Officers. (b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to give the equal status to the petitioner, who are working as Lady Extension officers, at par with the other Government Employees and to release all consequential benefits at par with the regular government employees along with interest. (c) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs or order/orders or direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 12/12/15 vide No.2280 (Annexure-14) issued by the Respondent No.8, being the District Development Commissioner-cum-Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency, Hazaribagh whereby and where under Respondent No.8 has been directed to account to section District Rural Development Agency, Hazaribagh recalculate the salary of the petitioner with other Lady Extension Officers, thereafter put up proposal for recovery of excess payment earlier. (d) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for payment of salary, which is held since June 2015, without any reason and to the pay interest upon the salary. (e) Court may deem fit & proper in the light of the facts of this case. For any other appropriate relief or relief(s) as this Hon’ble W.P. (S) No. 1352 of 2016 (a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the order of the Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, contained in Letter No. 1- 12(DRDA)/2013/6407 dated 11.12.2015 issued under the signature of the Respondent No. 3 addressed to the Respondent No. 6 (Annexure- 6), by which the said respondent has informed that the benefits of ACP/MACP cannot be extended to the employees of District Rural Development Agency (‘DRDA’ in short); 16 (b) For issuance of further writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of the Respondent No.4 addressed to the Respondent No. 5 contained in Letter No.133 dated 11.2.2016 (Annexure-7); whereby and whereunder the said respondent has communicated the decision of the State Government and has set aside the order granting the benefits of ACP/MACP with immediate effect; (c) For issuance of a further appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon respondents not to give effect to the order/Letter No. 6407 dated 11.12.2015 of the Respondent No.3 (Annexure-6) and the consequential order contained in Letter dated 11.2.2016 of the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-7); W.P. (S) No. 2838 of 2016 (a) For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office Order No.21 dated 3.2.2011 (Annexure-9) issued under the signature of Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby and where under decision has been taken not to give the status of Government servant to the working Lady Extension Officers. (b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to give equal status to the petitioner, who is working as Lady Extension Officer at par with the other Government Employees and to release all consequential benefits at par with the regular government employees along with interest. W.P.(S) No. 2763 of 2017 (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order contained in Memo No.21 dated 03.02.2011 (Annexure-11) passed by the respondent authorities whereby and whereunder the present petitioners have been declared to be a Non-State Govt. employees, as the petitioners were appointed on duly sanctioned post under the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA); (b) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.08.2013, contained in Letter No. 5182 (Annexure- 12) wherein an order has been passed whereby and wherein it has been ordered that the present petitioners working on the post of Lady Extension Officers will not be paid ACP and MACP benefits; (c) For further quashing the order contained in Memo No. 01- 39(DRDA)-2010/5298 Ranchi Dated 18.10.2017 (Annexure-16) issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt., Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand whereby and where under it is held that the Lady Extension Officer working under the District Rural Development Agency and working under the different Blocks are not the State Govt. Employees and therefore, the Circular of the Finance Department vide Memo No. 217 dated 18.01.2017 is not applicable, as the services of the petitioners has been treated on contract basis, as per the Circular of the 7th Pay Revision. (d) Petitioners further pray for quashing of the Resolution No. 01(DRDA)/2011/1845 dated 16.05.2018 (Annexure-26) issued by the 17 Government, issued by the Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, which is issued during the pendency of the present writ application and also as per the direction of this Hon’ble court, directing the respondents, in the facts & circumstances of this case; And/Or For declaring that since the petitioners being Lady Extension Officers are Govt. Employees are entitled to benefits of ACP/MACP as has been rightly extended to them from time to time. W.P.(S) No.6508 of 2017 (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office Order No.21 dt. 03/02/2011(Annexure-12) issued under the signature of Special Secretary, Rural Development Department Govt. of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder decision has been taken not to give the status of Government Servant to the working Lady Extension Officer. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to regularize service and give equal status to the petitioner as govt. servant, who is working as Lady Extension Officer as per with the other govt. Employees and to release all consequential benefits alongwith interest. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter/order dt. 18.10.2017 bearing No. 5298 issued by the Respondent No. 6 being under Secretary, Rural Development Department to all Deputy Commissioner / District Development Commissioner, State of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder a decision has taken not to give the benefit of Seventh Pay revised Scale to Lady Extension Officer on the basis of Para-10 of the Resolution Memo No. 217 dt. 18.01.2017 which was published in Jharkhand Gazette as No. 123 dt. 18.01.2017 of the Planning-cum-Finance Department (Financial Department). (iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Letter No. 5280 dt. 17.10.2017 issued by the Under Secretary, Rural to all District Development Department, State of Jharkhand Development Commissioner, whereby and whereunder directed to send a fresh proposal for payment of salary of Lady Extension Officers as per enclosed Performa on the basis of 6th Pay Revision till 06.11.2017. (v) For issuance of the writ in the nature of certiorari upon the respondents to forthwith pay the salary as paying alongwith statutory interest without any interference, as the same has been illegally and arbitrary withheld by the respondents. (vi) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent for quashing Resolution dt. 16.05.18 issued under the signature of Principal Secretary, State of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder the service condition of the Lady Extension Officer has been defined in the light of the previous Resolution No. 21 dt. 3.2.11. W.P.(S) No. 6666 of 2017 18 (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) for quashing of the letter contained in Memo No. 5298 dated 18.10.2017 (Annexure-10) issued under the signature of respondent- Deputy Secretary whereby and whereunder it has been decided that the benefits of 7th Pay Revision shall not be payable to the Lady Extension Officers working in the State of Jharkhand on the ground that the benefits of 7th Pay Revision shall only be payable to the Government Employees/servants. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) commanding upon the respondent authorities to allow the benefits of replacement scale under 7th Pay Revision to the petitioners. W.P.(S) No. 433 of 2020 (A) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office Orders No. 21 dt. 3.2.2011 (Annexure-11) issued under the Signature of Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder decision has been taken not to give the status of government servant to the working Lay Extension Officer working under Rural Development Department, State of Jharkhand. (B) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents for quashing Resolution dt. 16.5.18 (Annexure-15) issued under the signature of Principal Secretary, State of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder the service condition has been defined in the light of the previous Resolution No.21 dt. 3.2.11. (C) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Letter No. 5298 dt. 18.10.17 (Annexure-12) issued by the respondent being Deputy Secretary, Rural Development to all the Deputy Commissioner / District Development Commissioner, State of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder a decision has been taken not to give the benefit of seventh pay revised scale to Lady Extension Officer on the basis of Para-10 of the Resolution Memo No. 217 dt. 18.1.17 which was published in Jharkhand Gazette as no 13 dt. 18.1.17 of the Planning- cum-Finance Department. (D) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to confirm and regularize her services and give equal status to the petitioner as government servant, who were working as Lady Extension Officer with the other government employees and to release pension and all retirement consequential benefits alongwith interest. Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners 3. Learned counsels for the petitioners referred to letter dated 15.01.1988 (Page-13 of the convenience compilation) and submitted that the post of Lady Extension Officer was sanctioned post by the State Government in the Block Establishment and not a sanctioned post in District Rural Development Authority. He also submitted that 19 in this letter, it was clearly mentioned that the petitioners will not be treated as working on Deputation in DRDA and the posting of the petitioners in DRDA was only for the purposes of successful implementation of the programmes which were being implemented through DRDA. The learned counsel submitted that this letter clearly establishes that the petitioners were working against the sanctioned posts of the State Government. However, the said posts were sanctioned only for a short period. 4. He also submitted that the advertisement for the appointment of Lady Extension Officer was issued by the concerned Divisional Commissioner and the appointment letters were issued under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner upon the recommendation of the concerned Divisional Commissioner. The letter of appointment is on record and it is at Page No. 14 of the convenience compilation. He submitted that the letter of appointment itself indicates that the only the control of the petitioners was by DRDA, but they were appointed against sanctioned government post in Block Establishment. He submitted that the letter dated 15.01.1988 was subsequently withdrawn by the then State of Bihar by another letter dated 03.06.1998 (Page 24 of the convenience compilation) and such withdrawal was with immediate effect. He submitted that by this letter, the earlier status given to the petitioners i.e. government servant, was withdrawn and the Lady Extension Officers were to be treated at par with other extension officers in the Block. In order to mention about the other extension officers, the learned counsel referred to Page No. 3 of the convenience compilation and submitted that the other officers were village level workers, extension officer for credit, industry, women programmes and progress assistant. 5. He also submitted that the letter dated 03.06.1998 was challenged in CWJC No. 5577 of 1998 in which an interim order dated 15.09.1998 was passed and it was clearly mentioned in the interim order that the question as to whether the services of the petitioners have been rightly considered to be under District Rural Development Agency will be considered while disposing of the writ petition and the arrangement made through interim order was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. He submitted 20 that an arrangement was made through the interim order that the petitioners shall be paid their salary and allowances as they were being paid in the past notwithstanding the letter dated 3rd of June, 1998. 6. Learned counsel the petitioners referred for to the Communication of the Government of India dated 15th of April, 1999 (Page-27 of the convenience compilation) to submit that a decision was taken by the Government of India to phase out the scheme under which the petitioners were working, but in spite of such decision, the State Government continued to take work from the petitioners and it is not the case of the respondents that the work which the petitioners were discharging was no longer required. Rather the petitioners continued to work and some of the petitioners have also attained the age of superannuation. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition being CWJC No. 5577 of 1998, which was initially filed at Patna, was dismissed for default because of the fact that after bifurcation of the State, the Government of Bihar had taken a decision to regularize the services of Lady Extension Officers. 8. However, subsequently by virtue of order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 2028 of 1998 (R) dated 20.09.2006, a direction was issued to the respondents to take a policy decision as to whether Lady Extension Officer is a Government Servant or not and after taking such decision, they will also take a decision as to whether the services of Lady Extension Officers are required or not. 9. He submitted that pursuant to such direction a fresh decision was taken by the impugned order dated 03.02.2011 and it was decided that the Lady Extension Officer cannot be granted the status of a government servant. He submitted that the aforesaid letter dated 03.06.1998 which was subject matter of writ petition in CWJC No. 5577 of 1998 has also been considered and by the time, the impugned order dated 03.02.2011 was passed, the writ petition at Patna was pending which was dismissed for default only on 05.12.2012. 10. The learned counsel submitted that accordingly the entire subject matter of the present case is based upon the letter dated 03.02.2011 denying the status of government servant to the petitioners. 21 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the letter dated 05.05.2010 which has been found in the records of W.P. (S) No. 1227 of 2011 in the Supplementary Affidavit of the petitioners to the Counter Affidavit of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of the said case and the affidavit is dated 24.08.2015 (Annexure-19 at Page-21) and he submitted that this letter has been referred to in the impugned order. He submitted that this letter is required to be considered by this Court in view of the fact that in spite of the then State of Bihar having taken a decision not to treat lady extension officer as Government Servant, the initial appointment of the petitioners which was made in the year 1988 against sanctioned government post was extended from time to time and the petitioners have been working by virtue of the extension letters issued by the State of Jharkhand from time to time. 12. The learned counsel submitted that the initial appointment letter having been extended from time to time, it is not open for the respondents to say that the petitioners are not government servant and that the petitioners are not working against the sanctioned post of the State Government and therefore, the impugned order declaring that the petitioners cannot be granted the status of government servant is perverse and calls for interference. Learned counsel also submitted that in the letter dated 05.05.2010, there is a schedule giving the list of sanctioned post against Lady Extension Officer. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Annnexure-7 in the amended writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2763 of 2017 and submitted that the Annexure-7 dated 15.02.2006 is a decision of the Finance Department of the State of Jharkhand. He submitted that the matter regarding payment to Lady Extension Officer was subject matter of consideration in the Fitment Committee and at that stage, an objection was taken by the State that the petitioners cannot be entitled to any central pay scale and thereafter subject matter of consideration by the appellate committee and it was observed that such post does not exist in the Centre and the pre-revised scale in the Union Territory was much lower. In such circumstances, decision was taken to provide the replacement scale of Rs. 5000-8000. The learned counsel submitted that not only the petitioners have been working against the sanctioned post of the State, but they were also given the salary as per 22 pay scale which was subject matter of scrutiny by the Fitment Committee as well as the pay revision committee from time to time. Learned counsel also submitted that the very fact that the pay scale of the Lady Extension Officer was placed before the Fitment Committee for consideration itself indicates that the petitioners are government servants and were always treated to be government servant. Arguments on behalf of the Respondents 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State Mrs. Vandana Singh submitted that the appointment of the petitioners was never against sanctioned post. She submitted that the basic requirement for a sanctioned post is that it should be of a permanent nature and the salary, etc. should be directly paid by the State Government. She submitted that on the face of the letter dated 11th May, 1983, the post was of temporary nature and it was sanctioned only till 31.03.1985. She submitted that the said post was created in view of the background of the scheme for implementation of the “Integrated Rural Development Program” (IRDP) sponsored by the Central Government on 50-50 partnership basis with the State Government and the agency for the implementation was District Rural Development Agency. She also submitted that District Rural Development Agency is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. She also submitted that the records reveal that the salary to the petitioners were paid from time to time by District Rural Development Agency, though the fund for the same was made available by the State. Such fund was not made available under the relevant budgetary allocation, out of which, the salary of State Government employees is paid. She further referred to the letter dated 15th of January, 1988 and submitted that the same merely indicates that the petitioners would be entitled to same benefit, as was available to the other government servants under the then State of Bihar. She submitted that such letter was required to be issued, in view of the fact that otherwise the petitioners would not have been made entitled to similar benefits as that of the State government employees. She submitted that merely because some benefit, which was being given to the State government employees, was extended to the petitioners, the 23 same by itself is not sufficient to conclude that the petitioners were State government employees. She also submitted that the subsequent letter dated 03.06.1998, withdrawn with immediate effect, has no bearing in the matter, in view of the fact that the petitioners were never appointed against any vacant sanctioned post. Through the letter dated 03.06.1998, the benefits extended to the Lady Extension Officer vide letter dated 15th of January 1988, were simplicitor withdrawn. 15. She further submitted that the petitioners at the first instance had challenged the letter dated 3rd of June 1998, in writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.6042 of 1998 with other analogous cases, and thereafter, they continued to work by virtue of the interim orders passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court and ultimately, the said writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. She submitted that the principle is well settled that all interim orders merge with the final order. Therefore, even if the petitioners were continued by various orders issued by the State Government, the same has no bearing in the present case. She submitted that ultimately, the policy decision in regard to the status of the petitioners was taken only in the year 2011 and consequential benefit was also decided subsequently vide impugned decision of the year 2018. She submitted that both these decisions were taken by virtue of the orders/directions issued by this Court in different writ petitions. 16. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners have relied upon certain decisions of the State of Bihar, but those decisions have no bearing in the case, as the policy decision taken by State of Bihar has no relevance and is not binding on the policy decision taken by the State of Jharkhand. She also submitted that the policy decisions, which are impugned in the present case, are supported by reasons and the scope of interference in the matter of policy of the State Government is very limited. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents also relied upon the Circular dated 30.09.1988 issued by the State of Bihar and submitted that the post was created by DRDA. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the benefit of ACP, MACP, etc. has been given by the DRDA and not by the State government, but subsequently, the same has been withdrawn by the State Government. 24 17. The learned counsel for the respondent-State relied upon the following judgments: (1996) 1 SCC 773 (State of H.P. Vs. Ashwani Kumar & Ors) Para-4 (1996) 7 SCC 34 (State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh and Anr.) Para-3 (1999) 2 SCC 317 (Rajendra and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) Para-13 (2002) 10 SCC 656 (Dhyan Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.) Para-1 (2022) 4 SCC 193 (State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Bhagwan and Ors.) Para-26 & 28 Arguments on behalf of the Accountant General 18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General in W.P.(S) No. 6813 of 2013 submitted that the various provisions of Bihar Pension Rules are required to reconsidered. He referred to Rule- 9 which defines sub-cadre. He further referred to Rules- 58, 61, 71, 74 76 and 203 of the Pension Rules and also referred to Article 266 of the Constitution of India dealing with consolidated fund of India. He submitted that general revenue has also been defined under the Jharkhand Pension Rules. The learned counsel submitted that in order to get pension, all the three conditions as provided under Rule 58 are required to be satisfied. According to the counsel, the second and third conditions are not satisfied in the present case. He also submitted that the State Government has got the power to deal with exceptional circumstances in terms of Rule 59 and Rule 203 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, even if a case is not covered by Rule 58 and if a person does not satisfy all the three conditions for getting pension in terms of Rule 58. Therefore, he submitted that on the facts of the present case, the petitioners do not satisfy all the conditions of Rule 58. 19. The learned counsel also submitted that at one point of time, the pension was also sanctioned and was being paid, but when the State Government communicated to the Office of Accountant General that the conditions of Rule 58 are not satisfied, the office of Accountant General stopped further payment of pension. He also submitted that Rule 74 onwards deals with the 3rd condition and various categories 25 have been mentioned, which do not qualify as service paid by government and therefore, the third condition of Rule 58 is also not satisfied. 20. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Rakesh Kumar (2001) 4 SCC 309. 21. The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by