Dismissed

Bhairav Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Sept 2018LPA/88/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order condones a 15-day delay in filing an appeal pertaining to recovery of sums related to gratuity, leave encashment, and pension. The Court modified the First Court's order to direct the Superintending Engineer to calculate arrears for the appellant with an opportunity of hearing, while allowing the writ petitioner to challenge subsequent recovery actions.

What did the court decide?

Order of the learned First Court modified to direct the Superintending Engineer to calculate arrears and fix pension; appeal disposed of.

Bhairav Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 88 of 2018

¶2

¶3

Bhairav Mandal ------Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Water, Resource department Government of Jharkhand

¶6

Superintending Engineer, Rural Development (Special Circle), Hazaribagh ----Respondents

¶7

¶8

CORAM: Hon’ble The Chief Justice

¶9

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

¶10

¶11

For the Appellant: M/s A. Allam, Sr. Advocate, Priya Shrestha, Advocate For the Respondent: M/s Binod Singh, SC (L&C), Sarvendra Kr., AC

¶12

¶13

Order No. 06/ Dated: 04.09.2018

¶14

There is delay of 15 days in preferring the appeal.

¶15

On going through the application (I.A. No. 1751/2018) for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within time. We accordingly condone the delay in filing the appeal.

¶16

The dispute in this appeal pertains to recovery of certain sum. Learned First Court had directed the respondent Executive Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division, Koderma to calculate the arrears payable to the writ petitioner on account of 6^th Pay Revision for gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance and re-fix his pension on that basis. The main allegation against him was that as a Junior Engineer, he had made excess payment to the contractor. The respondent / writ petitioner has confined his prayer before us for modification of the order of the learned First Court to the limited extent that instead of respondent Executive Engineer, the Superintending Engineer may be given the power to calculate the arrears payable, re-fix his pension and give an opportunity of hearing.

¶17

Having regard to the limited nature of prayer, we modify the order of the learned First Court directing the Superintending Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division, Koderma to calculate the arrears of the writ petitioner / respondent in the manner directed by the learned First Court. Needless to add, writ petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the action of the respondent for recovering the sum from the arrears payable to him upon making necessary adjustment.

¶18

Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶19

( Aniruddha Bose, C.J.)

¶20

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J )

¶21

Ranjeet/AKM

Bhairav Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhairav Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Ms Foundry Of India Through Its Partner Smt Rashmi Arya Vs Hindustan Copper Limited

Karan Gope and Ors. Vs Shri Akhilesh Sinha and Anr.

Keshwar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Pr Secretary Deptt of Human Resources Development And Ors.

Mahesh Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Commissioner of Income Tax Jam Vs Prem Dhar Pandey

Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors. Vs Tapeshwar Das