Disposed

Mantosh Kumar Mondal v. Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Chairman

Jharkhand HC7 Mar 2019WPC/153/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired employee of JMArDA, filed a writ petition seeking post-retirement benefits. The Court directed the Managing Director to consider the claim, pay admitted dues, and decide the entire matter within 12 weeks, dismissing the writ petition as disposed. (2019)

What did the court decide?

Directed the Managing Director to consider the claim, pass a reasoned order, and pay admitted dues within 12 weeks.

Mantosh Kumar Mondal Vs Mineral Area… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

WP(S) No. 153 of 2019

¶3

Mantosh Kumar Mondal son of late Satish Chandra Mondal, resident of village Simuladan, P.O. Keliasole, P.S. Nirsa, District- Dhanbad.

¶4

…... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, through its Chairman, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. and District-Dhanbad.

¶7

The Managing Director, Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. and District-Dhanbad.

¶8

The Secretary, Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. and District-Dhanbad.

¶9

The Chief Medical Officer, Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. and District-Dhanbad.

¶10

The Accounts Officer, Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. and District-Dhanbad. …... Respondent(s)

¶11

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kr.Sinha, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Mahavir Prasad Sinha & Santosh Kumar Jha, Advocate.

¶12

----- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶13

04/07.03.2019: The petitioner, who was an employee of Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as 'MADA'), has superannuated on 30.4.2018. The petitioner has approached this Court claiming his post retiral benefits, as mentioned in prayer portion of the writ petition, which the petitioner is entitled to receive from MADA.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that suffice it would be if a direction is given to the Managing Director, MADA to decide the claim of the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner and further respondent No. 2- the Managing Director, MADA be directed to pay the admitted dues of the petitioner as per the scheme.

¶15

Counsel appearing on behalf of MADA has no objection, if a direction is given to the Managing Director, MADA to dispose of the representation of the petitioner and to pay the admitted dues to the petitioner on account of his post retiral benefits as per the scheme.

¶16

Considering the nature of prayer of the petitioner and in view of the order which I intend to pass, it is not necessary to call for an affidavit in opposition i.e. from MADA.

¶17

Accordingly, I direct the petitioner to file a detailed representation claiming his post retiral benefits under different heads before respondent No. 2- the Managing Director, MADA along with a copy of this order within six weeks from today. On receipt of such representation, the Managing Director, MADA shall consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of the scheme formulated by the MADA for payment of post retiral benefits to the employees and will pass a reasoned order. If any amount is found payable, the said amount would be paid to

¶18

the petitioner thereafter as per the scheme. The entire exercise should be concluded within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of representation along with a copy of this order.

¶19

If any portion of the claim of the petitioner is denied or disputed by the respondent(s), the reasons for such denial, should be communicated to the petitioner within the said period.

¶20

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶22

Anu/-CP-2.

Mantosh Kumar Mondal v. Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantosh Kumar Mondal v. Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Chairman

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

B Kalawati Vs Education

Sagar Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Controller Of Examination Staff Selection Commission And Ors.

Ramashish Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Lilavati Devi Vs Central Coal Field Ltd. Through Its General Manager L Andr And Ors.

Ram Bihari Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand