Disposed

Vijaya Lakshmi v. Road Construction

Jharkhand HC2 Feb 2015WPC/241/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding unpaid pension and leave encashment, the High Court of Jharkhand disposed of the petition after the respondents agreed to redress grievances via fresh representation, directing authorities to decide within stipulated timelines.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh representation within three weeks; respondent authority directed to take a decision within six weeks and communicate reasons if claim is disputed.

Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Road Construction — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) 241/2015

¶3

Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Shree Prakash, R/o House No. 206 Road No. 2, Basant Vihar, Harmu, Ranchi ........ Petitioner Vs.

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Dhurwa,Ranchi

¶6

The Chief Engineer, Central Design Organization,Road Construction

¶7

Department, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶8

The Executive Engineer, Planning and Investigation Division, Road Construction Department, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi

¶9

..…..Respondents.

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶12

---------For the petitioner : M/S Abhishek Sinha, Satish Kumar,Advocates For the Corporation : J.C. to G.A.

¶13

¶14

02/Dated: 2nd February, 2015

¶15

Petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction upon the respondents for payment of retiral dues such as pension and leave encashment.

¶16

Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Research Assistant, Planning and Investigation, Road Construction Department, and was retired from service on 31.01.2013.

¶17

It has further been submitted that no departmental proceeding is pending against the petitioner but in spite of representations made before the concerned authority, retiral dues has not been paid to him till date.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has fairly submitted that the grievances of the petitioner shall be redressed if fresh representation is filed.

¶19

In that view of the matter writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make representation before respondent no. 3 i.e. Chief Engineer, Central Design Organization, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and respondent no.3 shall take a decision within six weeks thereafter.

¶20

¶21

Needless to say, if claim of the petitioner is found to be legally admissible, the same shall be released in favour of petitioner and if respondent authority will dispute the claim the reason must be communicated to him by passing a reasoned order within stipulated period.

¶22

(Sujit Narayan Prasad,J.)

¶23

Nibha

Vijaya Lakshmi v. Road Construction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaya Lakshmi v. Road Construction

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

Chandan Kumar And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Junas Surin Vs Human Resources Department

MD Quamruddin Vs Water Resources Department

Tilak Dhari Pandey Vs Vinoba Bhave University Through Its Vice Chancellor And Ors.

Atul Prasad Choudhary Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mohan Lalbegi No 1 Vs The Mineral Area Development Authority Represented Through Its Managing Director And Anr.