High CourtsSingle Bench

Dharmadeo Prasad vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 12 October 2011 · Citation: (2011) 10 JH CK 0044

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J
CASE NUMBER
W.P (S) No. 2428 of 2008 With I.A. No. 2417 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 395 words

D.N. Patel, J.

I.A. No. 2417 of 2011

1.

Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this interlocutory application is allowed.

2.

Amendment will be carried out in the main writ petition.

3.

I.A. No. 2417 of 2011 is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.

1.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that suffice it will be for disposal of this writ petition, if a direction is given to Respondent No. 3 to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the claim of the Petitioner, by passing a detailed speaking order, in accordance with law and within stipulated time, as given by this Court.

2.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Respondents, who has submitted that they have no much objection, if such a direction is given to Respondent No. 3 to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the claim of the Petitioner, by passing a detailed speaking order, in accordance with law and within stipulated time, as given by this Court.

3.

In view of these submissions, I hereby direct Respondent No. 3 (Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administration Reforms and Rajbhasha, Jharkhand, Ranchi) to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the claims of the Petitioner which are referred to in the memo of the writ petition as well as referred in I.A. No. 2417 of 2011, by passing a detailed speaking order, in accordance with law, rules, Regulations, polices and Government enforceable orders, applicable to the Petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner or to his representative.

4.

It appears that there is confusion about the identity of the Petitioner, because learned Counsels for both the sides have narrated that there are two persons of same name in different departments.

5.

This confusion will be resolved by Respondent No. 3 upon proper identification and matching with the name and department of the State of Jharkhand.

6.

If any amount is found legally payable to the Petitioner, the same will be paid to him within further period of four weeks, thereafter.

7.

In view of the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of.