Disposed

Shyam Sundar Sah v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Dec 2019WPC/1183/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a writ petition where a superannuated petitioner sought arrears and benefits for 3rd MACP. The court directed respondents to decide on his entitlement and potential revision of earlier grants within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to decide on 3rd MACP claim and modify earlier grants within six weeks; payment of any due amount within three weeks thereafter.

Shyam Sundar Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 1183 of 2019

Shyam Sundar Sah

… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Addl. Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi

¶9

Under Secretary (Management), Water Resources Department, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi ... .. Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Shiv Lal Das, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Amritanshu Singh, AC to SC (Mines)-II ---

¶13

05/ 16.12.2019 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to grant the Third Financial Upgradation under the Modified ACP Scheme to the petitioner on completion of 30 years of regular service and also to pay arrears of salary on this account with all consequential benefits. Further prayer has been made to pay the applicable interest over arrears of salary, pensionary and retiral dues to him.

¶14

The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) by the order of Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation, Government of Bihar vide notification No. 634 dated 25.01.1979 and was posted at Triveni Canal Construction Division, Bagaha and he joined there on 31.01.1979. He passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination held on 02.09.1979 vide Memo No. 144 dated 11.02.1980. The services of the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 25.02.1985 by the order of the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resource Department, Government of Bihar vide order No. 490 dated 05.10.1990. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in current charge in pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- of Jr. Engineer and posted at Water Ways Construction Sub-Division, Mohania vide Notification No. 1715 dated 28.07.2001 and joined on 01.09.2001. Subsequently, he was granted pay-scale of Rs. 6500-200-10-500 from 01.09.2001 of Assistant Engineer vide notification dated 17.01.2002. He also successfully passed 1^st and 2^nd half-yearly examination as well as 1^st and 2^nd Half yearly Departmental Examination conducted by the Govt. of Bihar vide different notifications. It is specific case of the petitioner that he has already received benefits of 1^st and 2^nd ACP vide order No. 3509 dated 28.12.2007 and order No.4118 dated 16.10.2009 respectively. The petitioner has been superannuated from his service on 31.03.2017 and he had represented before the respondents for grant of 3^rd MACP w.e.f. due date but the respondents are sitting tight over the matter. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

¶15

¶16

Mr. Shiv Lal Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner has completed more than 30 years of regular and satisfactory service, he is entitled for the benefit of 3^rd MACP w.e.f. 31.01.2009 and he had represented before the respondents on several occasions, but no heed was paid and no order has been passed till date and as such, a direction be given upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and grant the benefit of 3^rd MACP and also to pay his arrears of salary with all consequential benefits.

¶17

Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Amritanshu Singh, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner was granted promotion as an Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 01.09.2001 vide Notification No. 408 dated 17.01.2002 and he was granted the benefit of 1^st and 2^nd ACP after completion of 24 years of regular service. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of 3^rd MACP as the matter has been placed before the Departmental Committee for taking a decision in which it is found that the service length of the petitioner for his service benefits has to be calculated from the date of his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer as this promotion is a whole new appointment in this cadre by virtue of promotion and also held that the benefit of 2^nd ACP earlier granted to the petitioner as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 31.01.2003 is not according to the Rules and Regulation and hence needs to be modified and as such, upon modification he becomes eligible for 2^nd MACP on 01.09.2021, but the petitioner superannuated from the service on 31.03.2017.

¶18

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, it appears that the petitioner has already granted the benefit of 1^st and 2^nd ACP and subsequently, petitioner is superannuated and thereafter has made a claim for grant of 3^rd MACP w.e.f. 2009 and also the representation of the petitioner is still pending before the respondents. Under such circumstances, respondents are directed to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner regarding entitlement of the petitioner for the benefit of 3^rd MACP and whether the benefit granted earlier can be revised in view of the Order No. 719 dated 20.02.2019. Let a decision be taken by the respondents, within a period of six weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioner is entitled for any amount, same shall be extended to him, within a further period of three weeks’. Resultantly, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶19

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

¶20

/punit/

Shyam Sundar Sah v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sundar Sah 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Sunil Kumar Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nagendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunita Devi Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Jagat Narayan Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Department Of Industry And Ors.

Smt Samola Devi Vs the Central Coal Fields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director