Disposed

Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava v. Welfare

Jharkhand HC18 Nov 2017WPC/3121/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned a retired government employee claiming pension, gratuity, and pay revision benefits while the state sought adjustment for excess past pay. The court directed authorities to consider the remaining claims, disposed of the petition with liberty to represent on specific claims.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to make detailed representation on 3rd MACP and 7th Pay Revision; direction to pay admissible pension, gratuity, and salary arrears subject to adjustments; reasoned order to be passed

Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava Vs Welfare — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3121 of 2017

¶2

Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava -----Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Secretary, Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand

¶6

The Joint Secretary, Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand --- Respondents

¶7

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

¶8

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Resp - State: Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Dubey, Sr. SC-1

¶9

04/ 18.11.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner has retired from the post of Upper Division Clerk on 31.10.2016 while working in the Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand. He seeks the benefits of Pension, Gratuity, Pension Commutation and grant of 3^rd MCAP with effect from 01.12.2012 as also the benefit of 7^th Pay Revision. He has been paid Provident Fund, Group Insurance and Earned Leave dues. He has made representation to the Respondent No. 2 on 08.03.2017 (Annexure-1) and followed it by another representation (Annexure-2) dated 24.04.2017.

¶10

According to him, no objection certificate was issued on 03.11.2016 by the Respondent No. 3 vide Memo No. 3288 (Annexure-3). Petitioner also states that vide Memo No. 3714 dated 15.12.2016 (Annexure-4), revised scale after 2^nd ACP with effect from 01.12.2006 has been granted, but it has been made clear that if payments are found more than permissible, the same would be recovered in lump-sum (Annexure-4). Petitioner contends that there is no misrepresentation on his part. In this factual matrix, the aforesaid relief has been prayed for.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State has filed a counter affidavit and submits that the petitioner was appointed as Typist on 01.12.1982 and was allowed the benefit of 1^st ACP and thereafter 2^nd ACP vide Office Order dated 14.07.2010 bearing Memo No. 2268. His pay was wrongly fixed in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4800, as he was entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200. The said order itself indicates that the amount, if any, paid beyond what is permissible under the rules and circulars, shall be recovered in lump-sum. The Finance Department has noted that there is wrong fixation in the pay of the petitioner in respect of the Grade Pay. That is why, Welfare Department issued Office Order dated 15.12.2016 amending the earlier order dated 14.07.2010 to the extent that the petitioner was allowed admissible pay scale in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200. The said order however is not under challenge. Petitioner belongs to the “Secretarial Cadre Post” under direct control of Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand. The concerned file relating to 3^rd MACP has been

¶12

¶13

forwarded by the parent Department to the Personnel Department for consideration. So far as the claim of 7^th Pay Revision is concerned, Finance Department has advised that the parent Department of the petitioner would consider it after final decision is taken on 3^rd MACP by the Personnel Department. Respondent No. 3 by Office Order dated 02.08.2017 bearing Memo No. 2304 has issued a direction that excess payment made to the petitioner is to be adjusted from the benefits of 3^rd MACP and arrears of 7^th Pay Revision and the balance excess payment is to be recovered from the Gratuity. Thus, all necessary action is under consideration of the Respondent authorities and admissible dues, if any, shall be finalized and paid forthwith (Annexure-C).

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid facts show that till date, not even Pension and Gratuity has been paid while Respondents are contemplating recovery of the excess amount paid on grant of 2^nd ACP due to higher Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 alleged to have been paid to him. Therefore, appropriate direction may be issued to pay the Pension and Gratuity to the petitioner and also to take decision in respect of remaining claim towards 3^rd MACP and 7^th Pay Revision. 6. Relevant material facts have been noted herein-above. In these background circumstances, Respondent authorities are required to take an informed decision in respect of the claim of the petitioner towards 3^rd MACP and 7^th Pay Revision in accordance with law. Petitioner is therefore allowed liberty to approach the Respondent No. 2 with a detailed representation in respect of the aforesaid claims which should be considered in accordance with law after due scrutiny of relevant records by passing a reasoned order within a reasonable time, preferably twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with the copy of this order. 7. Needless to say, admissible dues under Pension, Gratuity and the benefits accruable in matters of arrears of salary on grant of 3^rd MACP and 7^th Pay Revision be released in favour of the petitioner thereafter, in accordance with law and subject to adjustment, if any, required to be made towards excess payment. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶15

( Aparesh Kumar Singh, J )

¶16

Ranjeet/

Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava v. Welfare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava v. Welfare

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

Camry Developers Through Its Proprietor Vinod Jindal Vs Smt Shefali Roy

Rcm Infrastructure Limited through Its Managing Director Sri Koneru Subbiah Chowdry Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Genesis Represented by Its Proprietor Sri Prahlad Kakar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Sundar Yadav Vs The Union Of India Through Assistant General Manager Food Corporation Of India And Ors.

Ramashish Sharma Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Dinesh Prasad Singh Vs Education