Dismissed

Maharaj Nag Ohdar v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Mar 2014WPC/3275/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition filed by an untrained retired Assistant Teacher claiming post-retirement benefits. The Court held that since the petitioner voluntarily remained untrained despite mandatory provisions, the State has no liability for his dues, which must be agitated against the school's Managing Committee in the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit; no direction was issued to the State to pay post-retirement dues.

Maharaj Nag Ohdar Vs State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No.3275 of 2009

¶3

Maharaj Nag Ohdar ….... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand & ors. …..... Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr.Arun Kumar For the Respondent : Mr. S. Shrivastava and J.C. to G.P.II

¶6

08/05.03.2014 Heard counsel for the parties.

¶7

Petitioner is seeking retiral benefit on the strength of his claim that he retired as Assistant Teacher from R.C. Mission Middle School, Kamdara, Gumla on 11.12.2004. The said school is an aided minority school. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.S. No.936 of 2003 complaining that his salary has been stopped since October 1993 onwards and also seeking direction upon the respondents to allow him to sign the attendance register. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 11.7.2008 stating that writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches and inordinate and unexplained delay. However, observation was made that petitioner can agitate before the authorities if arrear of salary is yet to be paid. The petitioner has once again preferred this writ petition seeking payment for the post retirement dues.

¶8

The respondents have taken a categorical stand in their counter affidavit that petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee, Salegutu Anchal Kamdara w.e.f. 3.1.1970 as untrained teacher in Matric trained scale. Petitioner's appointment was approved by the District Superintendent of Education, Gumla on 10.1.1985 w.e.f. 1.1.1985. However, his proposition statement of payment of salary was rejected by the Director, Primary Education, Ranchi vide memo no. 2253 dated 20.8.2004 as the petitioner was untrained which is against the provision of Government memo no. 14(edu.) dated 26.6.1975 which are annexed as Annexure A and B to the counter affidavit.

¶9

According to the respondents, in view of the said circular of 1975 it was mandatory for the petitioner to get trained within two years of appointment on his own expense. The petitioner was still untrained. It is further submitted that petitioner having not fulfilled the mandatory

¶10

-2-

¶11

requirement till date, the proposition statement of the petitioner has been rejected by the Directorate of Primary Education. It is further stated that Government is liable only to pay the salary of teacher who are appointed legally based on valid procedure laid down by the Government and proposition statement for payment of salary is approved by the competent authority. It has further been stated that petitioner had been paid salary up to September, 1993 but thereafter his salary has been withheld by the Managing Committee due to above reasons. On these facts respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner.

¶12

Rejoinder to the counter affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner stating therein that petitioner was appointed on 3.1.1970 and as per the circular dated 15.11.1978, services of untrained teachers of religious minority school shall not be approved if the appointments are made after 1.1.1971. The said school was recognized as religious minority school w.e.f. 1.4.1978 vide letter dated 16.1.1979 in which such untrained teachers like the petitioner were working. The petitioner has further taken a plea that after recognization of the school as such the respondent no. 4, the Managing Committee of R.C. Mission Middle School, Kamdara, Gumla had recommended the name of the petitioner which was approved in the year 1985.

¶13

I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through relevant materials on record. From the facts, which are borne on record and have been referred on behalf of the parties as aforesaid, it is apparent that petitioner's appointment was approved sometime in the year 1985 by the District Superintendent of Education concerned. However, the petitioner's proposition statement was not approved by the Directorate of Primary Education, thereafter and has been rejected vide order annexed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit dated 20.8.2004.

¶14

Apparently the petitioner had also remained without salary since 1993 but approached this Court in the year 2003 alleging that he should be allowed to sign the attendance register and also his salary should be paid. The said writ petition was dismissed vide Annexure-12 to the writ petition as

¶15

-3-

¶16

it was suffering from gross delay and latches. The petitioner's proposition statement which has been rejected vide order dated 20.8.2004 is also not under challenge in the present writ application .In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not have legally sustainable right to claim post retirement benefit from the respondent- State and its authorities. If the Managing Committee of the school has engaged and taken work from the petitioner on their own, it is open for the petitioner to agitate his case against the Managing Committee of the school before the appropriate forum, however no direction can be given to the respondent- State for making payment of post retirement and other dues as claimed by the petitioner.

¶17

In view of the reasons discussed herein above, the writ petition being

¶18

devoid of merit is accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶20

A. Mohanty

Maharaj Nag Ohdar v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharaj Nag Ohdar v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Ashrita Manki Vs Education

Motilal Padit Vs Collectariate

Dr Anil Kumar Vs Health Medical Education And Family Welfare Dept

Md.Asiruddin And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Harihar Jamadar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ashrafuddin Ahmed Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary