JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs: (i) For issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay the post-retiral benefits such as; Gratuity, leave encashment and pension to the petitioner after her retirement on 31.10.2017 from the post of Lady Extension Officer, Block-Herhanj, District-Latehar. (ii) For quashing the resolution as contained in memo No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (the respondent No.2) whereby it has been concluded that the Lady Extension Officers are not the government servants and hence they are not entitled to get the benefits of the same. (iii) For issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay ACP/MACP to the petitioner as she was appointed on 03.06.1987 and retired on 31.10.2017 after rendering service under the respondents for more than 30 years. (iv) For issuance of further direction upon the respondents to pay difference of salary to the petitioner on account of 7th Pay Revision w.e.f. 01.01.2016 (actual benefits w.e.f. 01.04.2016). (v) For issuance of further direction upon the respondents to pay interest @ 12% per annum on all admissible dues payable to the petitioner with effect from the date the same were payable till the date of actual payment. 2. The relevant facts emerging from the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lady Extension Officer pursuant to advertisement dated 15.02.1985. The Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar had issued a letter as contained in memo No. 3401 dated 10.04.1987 whereby the Managing Director of the Bihar Rural Development Agency was intimated that the post of Lady Extension Officer was a sanctioned government post under the Block Establishment and the Lady Extension Officers are not the employees of the said Agency. The petitioner has further contended that she underwent selection process and was finally selected for appointment on the said post as would be evident from the order as contained in memo No. 521 dated 22.04.1987 issued under the signature of the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi. Thereafter, the appointment letter was also issued to the petitioner as contained in memo No. 849 dated 02.06.1987. Thereafter, the appointment letter was also issued to the petitioner as contained in memo No. 849 dated 02.06.1987. The Government of Bihar again issued a letter as contained in memo No. 645 dated 15.01.1988 whereby the Managing Director, District Rural Development Agency was informed that the post of Lady Extension Officer was a sanctioned government post under the Block Establishment and the Lady Extension Officers were not the employees of the said Agency, rather they were merely deputed in the said Agency. Pursuant to issuance of the appointment letter dated 02.06.1987, the petitioner joined on the post of Lady Extension Officer in Block-Patan, District-Palamau on 03.06.1987. The petitioner has also contended that she was given the benefits of pay revisions from time to time including the benefits of 6th Pay Revision, however, the benefits of 7th Pay Revision w.e.f. 01.01.2016 (actual benefits from 01.04.2016) have not been extended to her. The petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2017 while posted as Lady Extension Officer, Block-Herhanj, District-Latehar, however, she has not been paid pension and Gratuity as well as other admissible retiral benefits due to the impugned resolution as contained in memo No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018. 3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, while producing a copy of the judgment dated 19.05.2023 rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6042/2015 (Manjula Palit & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. and analogous cases), submits that similar writ petitions were taken up for consideration by a coordinate Bench of this Court and the same were disposed of vide the said judgment quashing the impugned memo No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018. 4. Though a counter affidavit as well as a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondents contesting the claim of the petitioner that she should be treated as a government servant, however, Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, learned S.C (L&C)-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, accepts the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in the present writ petition is similar to that of W.P.(S) No. 6042/2015 and other analogous cases which have been disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.05.2023. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted here under: “55. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted here under: “55. This Court finds that the impugned decisions with respect to the status of Lady Extension Officer as to whether they are government servant or not and the consequences flowing therefrom, are required to be set-aside to enable the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law. 56. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi, who has issued the impugned orders, is required to closely scrutinize the background of the appointment of Extension Officer (Industry and Commerce) and Statistical Investigators on one hand and that of Lady Extension Officers on the other hand, taking into consideration the conscious decision of the State government to take a different mode of selection of Lady Extension Officers to ensure better participation of local women and whether in this background, different mode of selection of Lady Extension Officer could be reason to treat Lady Extension Officers differently from other Extension Officer (Industry and Commerce) and Statistical Investigator when the mode and manner of creation of post of all extension officers appear to be identical. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi should record a specific finding as to the status of the employment of the lady extension officers and all consequences arising therefrom. 57. Accordingly, the impugned Office Order No.21 dated 03.02.2011 as well as the impugned Letter No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018 both issued by the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi are set-aside to the extent they have held that the lady extension officers do not have the status of government servant 43 and consequently they are not entitled to other service benefits such as ACP, MACP, pensionary benefits, etc. to enable the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi to take a fresh decision in accordance with law taking into consideration the issues raised by the petitioners as recorded above and also in the light of the observations made by this Court in this judgement. 58. The authorized one or two representatives of the petitioners shall approach the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi on 03.07.2023 by filing a detailed common representation alongwith a copy of this order. 58. The authorized one or two representatives of the petitioners shall approach the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi on 03.07.2023 by filing a detailed common representation alongwith a copy of this order. Upon filing of such representation, the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi will look into the grievance of the petitioners and fix a date of hearing and pass an appropriate reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the authorized representative by 14.08.2023. The reasoned order be also communicated to the petitioners through email as well as speed post at the address which may be mentioned in the representation itself. 59. So far as the various judgments which has been relied upon by the parties are concerned, they are not being specifically dealt with in this judgment in view of the fact that fresh order is required to be passed by the aforesaid authority who has to record findings on facts. In such circumstances, it will be open to the authority to consider the judgments which may be relied upon by the parties. If required, the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi may also depute an Advocate from the government side for assistance who may also be heard while passing the fresh order in terms of this judgement. 60. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these writ petitions are disposed of.” 5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the impugned resolution as contained in memo No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018 has already been quashed, no useful purpose will be served in directing the petitioner to approach the respondent No.2 as the same would be a tedious exercise on her part and hence this Court may itself determine the admissible payment of post-retiral benefits such as; Gratuity, leave encashment as well as the benefits of ACP/MACP and pay revision to the petitioner. 6. The said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear proper as the aforesaid batch of writ petitions have already been disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court wherein after quashing the impugned resolution as contained in memo No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018, the respondent No.2 has been directed to look into the said aspect on receipt of the representation of the said petitioners. Undertaking such exercise by the Court itself on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner will also be against the judicial propriety as in majority of the cases, the coordinate Bench has thought it proper to relegate such exercise to be undertaken by the respondent No.2. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent No.2 making her claim for payment of retiral benefits/all admissible dues including Gratuity, leave encashment, fixation of pension and payment of the same as well as the benefits of ACP/MACP, pay revision etc. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent No.2, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/her representative, shall take an appropriate informed decision within six weeks from the date of filing of the said representation. 8. Since the impugned resolution as contained in memo No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018 has already been quashed, the petitioner is now to be treated as a government servant and hence the exercise to be undertaken by the respondent No.2 will be factual in nature so as to determine the admissibility of different claims/retiral benefits to be paid to the petitioner.