Disposed

K Sasri Rajarshi Bhattacharjee v. Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh

Gauhati HC11 Feb 2020Cont.Cas(C)/11/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought enforcement of an order directing the respondent to process his pension papers. Court noted previous rejection due to missing vigilance clearance and subsequent discharge in criminal proceedings. Respondent directed to submit fresh proposal with discharge order.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to submit fresh pension proposal with discharge order to Directorate of Audit within two weeks.

K Sasri Rajarshi Bhattacharjee Vs Sri Rajesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040008092019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C) 11/2019

¶5

1:K SASRI RAJARSHI BHATTACHARJEE

¶6

S/O LT. RAM HARI BHATTACHARJEE, C/O P.P. HARDWARE, OPP . BUSHIYA MOTORS SECTOR-A, P O NAHARLAGUN, DIST. PAPUM PARE, AP. PIN 791110. MOBILE NO. 8257872342

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:SRI RAJESH KUMAR SINGH

¶9

THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST. PRESENTLY PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST. PO BANDERDEWA , DIST. PAPUM PARE, AP.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S Dey

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MrK Saxena

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 11-02-2020

¶16

Heard Mr. T. Ete, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the sole respondent.

¶17

This is an application filed by the petitioner against the respondent for non-compliance with the order dated 28.02.2018, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 472(AP)/2016, by which the sole respondent was directed to process the pension papers of the petitioner and if it was

¶18

Page No.# 2/3

¶19

found that he had already submitted the required documents, the sole respondent was to forward the same to the concerned authority for release of the petitioner’s pension.

¶20

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the pension papers that had been submitted by the sole respondent to the Directorate of Audit & Pension, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh on 26.05.2017 has been returned by the said Directorate vide letter dated 20.05.2019, on the ground that the Vigilance Clearance Certificate of the petitioner had not been forwarded along with the proposal for pension.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been discharged by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yupia in Misc Case No. 1/2019 in GR No. 102/2019, arising out of BDW PS Case No. 01/207 under Section 468/471 IPC vide order dated 27.03.2019. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in view of the above discharge order dated 27.03.2019, the sole respondent should have made a note under Clause 12 of the format for payment of pension, to the effect that there was no departmental/civil/court case or police action pending against the petitioner. However, at the time the pension proposal had been sent by the sole respondent to the Directorate of Audit & Pension, the sole respondent had noted under Clause 12 that there was a police action contemplated against the petitioner.

¶22

Mr. P.K. Tiwar, learned Senior Counsel for the sole respondent submits that the sole respondent has complied with the order dated 28.02.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 472(AP)/2016. He also submits that the discharge of the petitioner, vide order dated 27.03.2019 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yupia, is a subsequent event, which was not in existence at the time the pension proposal of the petitioner had been sent. He however submits that if the petitioner’s counsel can provide him a copy of the discharge order dated 27.03.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Capital Complex, Yupia, he will submit the same with the sole respondent, who shall thereafter send a fresh pension proposal to the Directorate of Audit & Pension, so as to enable the petitioner to get his pension.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶24

The letter No. PFN/AP/28505/17-18/347 dated 20.05.2019, issued by the Director of Audit & Pension, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, which is addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Western Arunachal Pradesh Circle, Banderdewa is to the effect that the

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

petitioner’s pension paper has been checked and the same has been returned due to the fact that no Vigilance Clearance Certificate had been forwarded along with the pension papers. The above fact makes it abundantly clear that the sole respondent had submitted the pension papers of the petitioner to the Directorate of Audit & Pension earlier in compliance of the order dated 28.02.2019, passed in WP(C) No. 472(AP)/2016. However, the pension proposal has been returned due to the above reason.

¶27

The order discharging the petitioner from the criminal case has been issued on 27.03.2019 and this subsequent event has not been brought to the attention of the Directorate of Audit & Pension by the sole respondent. However, in view of the submission made by Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the sole respondent, the petitioner shall, during the course of the day furnish a copy of the discharge order dated 27.03.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yupia to Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel, who shall submit the same to the sole respondent. As undertaken by Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel, this Court expects that the sole respondent shall submit a fresh pension proposal along with the discharge order dated 27.03.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yupia to the Directorate of Audit & Pension, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh for processing the pension papers of the petitioner at the earliest and preferably within a period of 2 (two) weeks from today.

¶28

The contempt petition accordingly stands closed.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

K Sasri Rajarshi Bhattacharjee v. Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Sasri Rajarshi Bhattacharjee v. Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tangir Tamut Vs Govind Jaswal

Samsul Haque Islam Vs Alok Kumar, IAS and 4 Ors.

Pratima Sengupta Vs Siddharth Singh, I.A.S. and 3 Ors.

Lalit Ch. Bhakat and 3 Ors. Vs Nazrul Islam and 4 Ors.

Shainur Begum @ Shainur Bewa Vs Nagendra Karmokar

Kanak Chandra Patowary Vs Sanjeev Bhuyan

Rajib Das and 4 Ors. Vs Rathindra Bhuyan and 2 Ors.

Purnendu Sekhar Debnath Vs Preetom Saikia, IAS and Anr.

Tangir Tamut Vs Govind Jaswal

Sonam Gyatso Vs The State of Ap and 6 Ors.

Samsul Haque Choudhury Vs Sweety Zohmanglaihi and Anr.

Nasib Gao Vs the State of Ap

Shri Praveen Tayang Vs the Union of India

M/S Kakum Enterprises Vs The State of Ap and 7 Ors.