Disposed

Indradeo Prasad Burnwal v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Anr.

Jharkhand HC14 Jun 2016WPC/851/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition where the petitioner claimed entitlement to MACP benefit and requested revision of his pay scale from 01.09.2008. The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation before the appropriate authority rather than deciding the claim immediately.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation with documents within two weeks; respondent to decide and pass reasoned order within two months and grant consequential benefits if entitled.

Indradeo Prasad Burnwal Vs Jharkhand Urja… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 851 of 2016

¶2

Indradeo Prasad Burnwal... Petitioner.

¶3

Versus

¶4

Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Ranchi, through its Chairman-cumManaging Director.

¶5

General Manager HR & PA, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Ranchi ... ... ... ...Respondents.

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN, -----For the Petitioner : Mrs. Rashmi Kumari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ram Subhak Singh, Advocate.

¶7

…...... 02 /14.06.2016: The petitioner in this writ application has prayed to grant him the benefit of MACP in the light of the resolution of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board dated 24.02.2012.

¶8

The petitioner contended that he is entitled to get the benefit of MACP and his pay scale ought to have been revised by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.) with effect from 01.09.2008. The petitioner further submits that similarly situated persons, who are working with the petitioner and in fact junior to the petitioner, have been extended the benefit of MACP, but the petitioner has been left out. At last, the petitioner submits that he has filed a representation, which is pending before the General Manager (HR & PA), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Ranchi.

¶9

Counsel for the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Ranchi, Mr. Ram Subhak Singh submits that if no decision has yet been taken on the representation of the petitioner by the appropriate authority, same will be taken at the earliest.

¶10

In view of the submission made by the parties, I direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation annexing all the documents which the petitioner relies on in this case before appropriate authority i.e. respondent no.2 within a period of two weeks from today. The respondent no.2 on receipt of the said representation, will pass a reasoned order as per the Scheme Circular and Law within a period of two months thereafter. While deciding the claim of the petitioner if ultimately it is found by the authorities that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of MACP all consequential benefits will be extended to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶11

This disposes of the writ petition.

¶12

( ANANDA SEN , J)

¶13

Sharma/-

Indradeo Prasad Burnwal v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indradeo Prasad Burnwal v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Anr.

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

Alexia Ekka Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Pinki Sardar Vs Human Resources Department

Sohwa Devi Vs Central Coalfield Ltd. Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Baleshwar Das Vs Animal Husbandary Department

Arun Kumar Ghosh Vs Rural Dev Dept

Pankaj Kumar Vs Education