Disposed

Amal Kant Sinha v. Water Resources Department

Jharkhand HC1 Dec 2017WPC/4634/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a natural justice objection due to the State's positive commitment to place the matter in the screening committee. It directed authorities to decide the petitioner's claim for A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. benefits within three months and process consequent payments within two months, with a separate direction for the refund prayer.

What did the court decide?

Direction to authorities to decide petitioner's claim for A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. within three months and make consequent payments within two months; direction regarding refund of Rs.4,990/-.

Amal Kant Sinha Vs Water Resources… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 4634 of 2016

¶3

------Amal Kant Sinha …..Petitioner -Versus1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. Deputy Director (Science) Quality Control Division, Water Resources Division, Ranchi. …. Respondents

¶4

------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA

¶5

------For the Petitioner : M/s. Sunil Kumar Sinha For the State : M/s. A.P.P.

¶6

6/ 01.12.2017. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent State.

¶7

The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner, who was working as Research Assistant in the office of the Deputy Director (Science) Quality Control Division, Water Resources Division, Ranchi, and he superannuated from the post on 31.03.2010.

¶8

The writ petitioner was not granted his A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. benefits during his service period, for which this writ application has been filed. A separate prayer was also made for refund of the deducted amount of Rs.4,990/-.

¶9

A counter-affidavit has been filed by the State stating therein that proposal for grant of A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. of the petitioner could not be placed in the meeting of the Screening Committee which was held on 23.03.2016 due to want of papers.

¶10

A further positive statement has been made in the counter affidavit that the matter of the petitioner shall be placed in the forth coming meeting of the Screening Committee. This affidavit was filed on 22.2.2017 itself, but this Court is informed that till now, no meeting of the Screening Committee has been held.

¶11

-2-

¶12

In view of such positive statement in the Counter-affidavit, the matter cannot be deferred ad infinitum . Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities to finally decide the matter of granting A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. to the petitioner, positively within the period of three months from the date of receiving of the order by the respondent authorities. After taking the final decision about the A.C.P and M.A.C.P, the consequent payments, if admissible, shall also be made to the petitioner within a further period of two months from the date of taking the final decision.

¶13

As regards the other prayer for refund of the amount of Rs.4990/-, which has no connection with the main prayer for grant of A.C.P & M.A.C.P, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move the appropriate authority for the refund of the same and if the petitioner files the representation for the same, the same shall be disposed of with a speaking order within a period of three months of its filing.

¶14

This writ application is accordingly, disposed of with the directions as above.

¶15

D.S./B.S.

Amal Kant Sinha v. Water Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amal Kant Sinha v. Water Resources Department

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

Sushil Oraon Alias Binod Jee Alias Bhagat Jee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hareram Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rohit Kumar Singh Alias Rohit Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Prabha Neel Sushma Kindo and Ors.

Dr Rekha Roy and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Manoranjan Prasad Sinha Vs Managing Committee Of Vivekanand Vidhya Mandir Through Its Secretary