logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Jhar HC 079 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Jharkhand
Case No : W.P. (S) No. 414 of 2021
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
Parties : Omprakash Das Versus Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, through its General Manager (P & GA), Jharkhand & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Navin Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Kanishka Deo, AC to GP-IV, Manish Kumar, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 09-02-2026
Head Note :-
Comparative Citation:
2026 JHHC 3448,
Judgment :-

1. It is the case of the petitioner that after his superannuation, his promotion has been cancelled and the pay scale has been reduced.

2. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent – JUVNL, submits that a similar set of employees approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.255 of 2021 (Chandra Bhushan Prasad Verma Vs. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited & Ors.) and other Analogues cases. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 27.07.2022.

3. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the Writ Court, the employees filed Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.356 of 2022 (Chandra Bhushan Prasad Verma Vs. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited & Ors.) and other Analogues Appeals. The said Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of vide judgment dated 09.02.2023, and the matters were remitted back to the competent Authority directing them to issue show cause notice to the writ petitioners individually, by assigning reasons for cancellation of their promotions. The writ petitioners were directed to file their reply and the Authority in turn was directed to take a decision.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Manish Kumar, further states that he received instruction from his client that the case of those writ petitioners including the case of present petitioner, were decided and it was concluded that since they were not eligible for promotion at that point of time. It was further decided that though the promotion cannot be granted, but no amount will be recovered from the pension / family pension. A copy of the order as contained in Notification No.681 dated 24.12.2024 is kept on record. A copy of the said Notification has also been handed over to the petitioner’s counsel.

5. In view of the aforesaid order, which learned counsel representing the respondents has produced before this Court, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that a decision has been taken to not recover any amount from the pension / family pension of the petitioner, the petitioner has no further grievance.

6. Thus, learned counsel representing the petitioner at this stage submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition to file a fresh writ petition on a fresh cause of action, if any.

7. Permission is granted.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with the aforesaid liberty.
 
  CDJLawJournal