WPC/2393/2014 of KAMESHWAR PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS on 5 October 2026

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, Ranchi cum Chairman, Ranchi Institute of Neuro- Psychiatry & Allied Sciences, Kanke, Ranchi (In short RINPAS) at Kachhari chowk, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi.

3. The Principal Secretary to Government, Health, Health Education and Family Government Welfare Department Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, At Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi.

4. The Director, Ranchi Institute of Neuro Psychiatry and Allied Sciences (RINPAS), Kanke, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, District- Ranchi.

5. The Under Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand Ranchi at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi.

Respondent(s)

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA-III For the Resp. RINPAS : Mr. Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate

------

Order No.07/Dated: 05.10.2026

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- “For quashing the order Letter No. 225(7B) dated 07/10/2010 (Annexure-6) issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Respondent No.-5 whereby and where under the information has been given to the Petitioner that the Petitioner's claim of Honorarium Rupees Sixty thousand (60000/-) has been refused by the Managing Committee of the RINPAS in its 40th meeting dated 20/02/2010 without giving any rhyme and reason although the Petitioner served to the RINPAS from 1st May 2008 to month of July 2008 on the contract basis on monthly honorarium Rupees Twenty thousand (20,000/-) and further prays for a direction upon the Respondents and direct them to make payment the admitted honorarium due of Rupees Sixty thousand (60000/-) with the interest of at the Rate of 18% per annum from the due date to the Petitioner on account of taken the service of the Petitioner on contract basis.”

( 2026:JHHC:29712 )

3. From the argument and hearing of the parties, it appears that the petitioner has claimed that he has worked as a Special Legal Advisor. For that purpose, Letter No. 1246 dated 20.05.2008 (Annexure-1) has been brought on record. It suggests that the services are being taken and approval has been sought from the State Government for appointment to the above post.

4. It has been claimed by the appellant that although he has not been formally appointed, but on instruction of the Director, RINPAS, he has worked on the said post and as per the terms of the direction, he has claimed Rs. 60,000/- towards his honorarium which has not been paid and accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-RINPAS has opposed the prayer and has submitted that in the Government Departments, money is released either through the contractual relationship or through the sanctioned post. In the present case, there is neither any sanctioned post, nor any contractual relationship has been formed. It has further been submitted that merely permission has been sought. The Director, RINPAS has no power to make any such appointment. It has also been submitted that even if he has worked, it is request of the Director in personal capacity and as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, especially in view of the submission of the parties, it is quite clear that the petitioner has neither been appointed against a sanctioned post by the competent authority, nor any contractual relationship has been formed.

7. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the present writ petition is not maintainable.

8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) 05.10.2026 Vedanti/ Uploaded on 07.10.2026