Dismissed

Dani Ram Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand through Director Primary Education H R D Department

Jharkhand HC11 Oct 2018WPC/2759/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding unpaid teacher provident funds, the High Court of Jharkhand directed respondent authorities to verify if the petitioners' case matches that of W.P.(S) No. 2376 of 2016 and extend benefits within eight weeks if facts are found similar.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to verify similarity with W.P.(S) No. 2376 of 2016 and extend benefits within eight weeks if similar.

Dani Ram Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 2759 of 2018

¶3

¶4

Dani Ram Mahato

¶5

Dulal Mahato

¶6

Yogendra Nath Mahato

¶7

Tulsi Mahato

¶8

Mohan Oraon

¶9

Shanti Devi

¶10

Panchami Mahato

¶11

Rabni Devi

¶12

Lakshmi Devi

¶13

Kamla Devi

¶14

…… …... …… Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State of Jharkhand through the Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Ranchi.

¶17

The Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela-Kharsawan.

¶18

The District Superintendent of Education, Seraikela-Kharsawan.

¶19

…… ….. ….. Respondents

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK

¶21

----------For Petitioners : Mr. Akshay Kumar Mahto, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Chaitali Ch. Sinha, AC to AAG

¶22

-----------

¶23

04/ 11.10.2018 In view of order dated 06.09.2018, passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2756 of 2016, only one Court fee is required where prayer is common irrespective of number of petitioners in that case.

¶24

Accordingly, defect No. 1, as pointed-out by the Office is ignored.

¶25

Heard the parties.

¶26

The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction

¶27

upon the respondents to pay amount of Provident Fund for the period from 01.01.1971 to 31.03.1973 with upto date statutory interest i.e. till the date of actual payment.

¶28

The case of the petitioners lies in a narrow compass. The petitioners were

¶29

appointed as teachers in different Schools in between the year 1952 to 1970. It is the

¶30

¶31

specific case of the petitioners that after taking over of Non-Government Elementary Schools by the State Govt. w.e.f. 01.01.1973, pursuant to Govt. Resolution dated 09.02.1973, the pay-scales of the teachers of such Schools were revised and arrears of salary for the period from 01.01.1971 to 31.03.1973 were decided to be deposited in the Provident Fund Accounts of the Teachers of such Schools. Thereafter, the provident fund amount of petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and late husband of petitioner Nos. 6 to 10 have been recorded and shown in Prapatra-1 prepared by the District Superintendent of Education however, they have not been paid their respective Provident Fund for the period from 01.01.1971 to 31.03.1973. The petitioners have approached before the respondent-authorities for payment of the said amount in view of the fact that similarly situated persons have already been extended the said benefits but all went in vain and as such, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this Hon’ble Court.

¶32

At the very outset, Mr. Akshay Kumar Mahato, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this writ application is squarely covered by the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 15.03.2018 in W.P.(S).No. 2376 of 2016 and as such, this case may be disposed of in terms of orders passed in the aforesaid case.

¶33

On the other hand, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, however, Ms. Chaitali Ch. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that issues involved in this writ petition has already been decided by the Hon’ble Court on 15.03.2018 in W.P.(S).No. 2376 of 2016 and the present writ petition may be disposed of in view of order passed in above mentioned case.

¶34

In view of the fair submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of in terms of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court on 15.03.2018 in W.P.(S).No. 2376 of 2016 and if the cases of the present petitioners are found same and similar to the cases of the petitioners of W.P.(S).No. 2376 of 2016, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits.

¶35

¶36

Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondent-authorities to verify the factual aspects/ issues involved in the present writ petition vis-à-vis factual aspects/ issues involved in W.P.(S).No. 2376 of 2016 and if the facts/ issues involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petition, the same benefits may be extended to the present writ petitioners also, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶37

With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶38

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶39

kunal/

Dani Ram Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand through Director Primary Education H R D Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dani Ram Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand through Director Primary Education H R D Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mubarak Hussain And Ors. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Md Safatulla Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Bansidhar Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand through Director Primary Education H R D Department

Janardhan Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Director Primary Education Deptt of Literacy

Baleshwar Kumar Das Vs Human Resources Department