Disposed

Jai Prakash Rai v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC2 Nov 2017Cont.(Cvl)/539/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of a contempt petition regarding non-payment of pension and granted leave to the respondent to take a final decision within 4 weeks on A.C.P claims and release due benefits without unreasonable delay.

What did the court decide?

Order disposed of with direction to finalize A.C.P claim within 4 weeks and pay admissible benefits without unreasonable delay.

Jai Prakash Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 539 of 2016

¶3

Jai Prakash Rai ….........Petitioner

¶4

Vrs.

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶6

2.The Principal Secretary, M.M. Kulkarni, Dept. of Cooperative,Jharkhand 3.The Registrar, Mukesh Verma, Cooperative Socities, Ranchi 4.The Assistant Registrar, Atom Toppo, Cooperative Societies, Garhwa

¶7

….......... Opposite Parties

¶8

….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, J.C to G.P.V

¶9

07/02.11.2017 Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits on the basis of the show cause filed on 30.10.2017 that the Pension Intimation Order, Gratuity Payment Order have been issued by the office of Accountant General, Jharkhand and are enclosed to Annexure-A, letter dated 11.9.2017 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Garhwa. The admissible dues towards G.P.F could not be released as the petitioner has not counter signed the application form for final withdrawal of payment towards G.P.F. The same would be made no sooner the petitioner completes the aforesaid formalities. It is further stated that an amount of Rs. 2,41,421/- towards earned leave encashment and Rs.1,30,101/towards G.P.F have earlier been paid as per the said communication itself. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that all possible steps have been taken for compliance of the order and there is no willful violation of the order.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the G.P.F amount is due and claim of A.C.P has not yet been finalized.

¶11

Relevant facts noticed herein above goes to show that claim of G.P.F amount would be released no sooner the petitioner submits his signature on the application form for withdrawal of final amount. The claim of A.C.P has been determined as per the enclosed annexure, i.e decision of the Screening Committee dated 13.9.2017 under the chairmanship of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. As per the appendix enclosed thereto, claim of first A.C.P, second A.C.P and third M.A.C.P have been recommended by the Screening Committee. Let a final decision be taken in that regard within a period of 4 weeks from today and admissible benefits towards A.C.P / M.A.C.P benefits be also extended to the petitioner thereafter with consequential revision if any arising therefrom in pensionary benefits and arrears without any unreasonable delay thereafter.

¶12

The contempt petition is disposed of.

¶13

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶14

A.Mohanty

Jai Prakash Rai v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash Rai v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Surendra Prasad Singh Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Shri Shri Damodar Chandraji Deity Represented through Its Sebayat Maghendra Narayan Singh Vs State of Bihar And Ors.

M/S Tisco Vs M/S S.K.Saha And Co. And Anr.

Surendra Prasad Mahto and Ors. Vs Baleshwar Mistry

Indu Bhushan Singh Vs Mr Amrit Lal Meena Principal Secretary Road Construction Deptt