Disposed

Ramashish Sharma v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC18 Nov 2017WPC/4182/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court order disposed of a writ petition seeking Medical Assistance Card and pension benefits. The court directed the Inspector General of Police to consider the petitioner's representation within 12 weeks and extended the relief to the Accountant General.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach IGP personally for benefit consideration; Competent Authority to decide within 12 weeks; Accountant General to sanction pension revision.

Ramashish Sharma Vs The State Of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4182 of 2017

¶2

Ramashish Sharma ….........Petitioner

¶3

Vrs.

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶5

2.The Director General of Police, Jharkhand

¶6

3.The Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶7

4.The Inspector General of Police(Personnel), Headquarter at Ranchi

¶8

5.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur, Jharkhand

¶9

6.The Superintendent of Police, Simdega, Jharkhand

¶10

7.The Accountant General of Jharkhand(A&E), Jharkhand

¶11

…....... Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur For the Respondents : Mr. Vikash Kumar, J.C to A.G. : Ms Shruti Shrestha ( for Resp. No. 7)

¶13

05/18.11.2017

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

Petitioner has retired on 31.03.2016 from the post of Sub Inspector under Simdega District Police. He contends that claim of MA.C.P was considered by the Office of Director General of Police(D.G.P.), Jharkhand but the claim of the petitioner was not allowed for the reason that the date of confirmation of his service was not recorded in the service book. Such a remark has been made against his name at Serial No. 560 of the notification at Annexure-1 dated 26.05.2017. Several other similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit of M.A.C.P. Petitioner has also not been granted 7^th Pay Revision and final fixation of pension. Representations have been made to the office of D.G.P., Jharkhand, such as Annexure-2 series but the grievance of the petitioner have remained unredressed. Therefore he has approached this Court.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Respondent State submits that instructions are awaited in the matter as it has been taken up for the first time. Respondent No.7, Office of Accountant General has filed counter affidavit stating that the P.P.O has already been authorized and issued by the office of Accountant General w.e.f. 01.04.2016; G.P.O and C.P.O has also been issued. The instant claim related to A.C.P however does not fall within their jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the Respondent State submits that if so directed, Respondent State Authorities would consider the matter in accordance with law after due scrutiny of the relevant record of the petitioner.

¶17

Having regard to the factual matrix of the case as noted hereinabove, without commenting upon the merits of the claim, the writ petition is being

¶18

-2-

¶19

disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Office of Respondent No.4, The Inspector General of Police(Personnel), Ranchi, Jharkhand through proper channel of Respondent No.6, the Superintendent of Police, Simdega by way of a detailed representation supported with all necessary facts and documents along with the copy of this order. The Competent Authority / Respondent no.4 would consider his representation thereafter in accordance with law after due scrutiny of the relevant record and take a decision within a reasonable time, preferably 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order along with representation. Needless to say, dependent upon such decision, benefits of M.A.C.P and 7 P.R.C, if found admissible, be extended without any unreasonable delay. Consequently, revision in pensionary benefit be also sanctioned for release of authority slip by the Office of Accountant General as per the decision taken.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶21

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶22

A.Mohanty

Ramashish Sharma v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramashish Sharma 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

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.

Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava Vs Welfare

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

Dinesh Prasad Singh Vs Education