Disposed

Deglal Mahto and Ors. v. Water Resources Department

Jharkhand HC8 Jul 2019WPC/1723/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking salary arrears from 1995 to 2004 for Pump Chalak employees. It directed Managing Directors of BHALCO and JHALCO to verify entitlements based on the Supreme Court order in Civil Appeal No. 10515 of 2013 and release dues within eight weeks if found eligible.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit fresh representations regarding salary entitlements within six weeks; if eligible, petitions to be disposed of by releasing salary within eight weeks.

Deglal Mahto and Ors. Vs Water Resources Department — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1723 of 2014

¶2

Deglal Mahto, son of late Bishun Mahato, resident of village – Kanti, PO-Tiliya Dam, PS – Jai Nagar, District Koderma.

¶3

Prayag Prasad, S/o late Hiraman Mahto, resident of village Barki Dhamrahiya, PO-Tiliya Dam, PS-Jai Nagar, District – Koderma.

¶4

Birendra Kumar, S/o Jagdish Singh, resident of Village-Bela, PO-Tiliya Dam, PO-Barhi, District – Koderma.

¶5

Sita Devi, W/o late Bansi Yadav, resident of village-Barki Dhamrahiya, PO-Tiliya Dam, PS-Jainagar, District – Koderma.

¶6

Laxman Gope, son of late Jai Ram Gope, resident of village-Kanti, POTiliya Dam, PS-Jai Nagar, District – Koderma.

¶7

Rajendra Thakur, S/o Ram Rekha Thakur, resident of village-Kothiya, PO-Gaini Nagar, Doud Nagar, PS-Obra, District Aurangabad, Bihar

¶8

… … … Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Jharkhand.

¶11

Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District – Ranchi.

¶12

Jharkhand Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation, Govt. of Jharkhand.

¶13

Managing Director, Jharkhand Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation, Govt. of Jharkhand.

¶14

State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Balley Road, PO & PS – Balley Road, District – Patna. 6. The Managing Director, Bihar Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation (BHALCO), Vishwaraiya Bhawan, Balley Road, PO & PS – Balley Road, District Patna … … … Respondents

¶15

-----

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶17

----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent (JHALCO) : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate For the Respondent (BHALCO) : Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, Advocate -----

¶18

07/Dated: 8^th July, 2019

¶19

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for release of arrears of salary from 01.08.1995 to till date in pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 10515 of 2013 in the case of State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. Harihar Yadav & Others .

¶20

2. The petitioners were working over the post of Pump Chalak on the basis of daily wage and continued on that post till 2004 and they were getting salary from Bihar Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation (BHALCO). The petitioners have asserted that the petitioners worked over the said post but they did not get salary from 01.08.1995 till 2004.

¶21

3. Mr. Pandey, appearing for the petitioners submits that in the case of

¶22

-2-

¶23

Kapila Hingorani & Another Vs. State of Bihar & Another , the Hon’ble Supreme Court made out certain formula for paying the salary of the employees of Bihar Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation (BHALCO) and Jharkhand Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation (JHALCO). He further submits that after the order dated 13.01.2005, 218 petitions were filed for absorption in JHALCO. In the case of Kapila Hingorani , Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically directed the Managing Director, BHALCO and Managing Director, JHALCO and also the Secretaries of the Government of Bihar and Government of Jharkhand that they shall meet within one month from the date of order and decide upon and assess the liability on account of arrears of the salaries payable to the employees already absorbed and to be absorbed and make a report thereof within a week of the date of decision to the High Court for taking final decision regarding the mode of payment etc. to the employees, if any, so that the liability of JHALCO to that extent stands reduced. However, the present petitioners have been left out and they have not been paid their salaries.

¶24

4. Finally, the Civil Appeal No. 10515 of 2013 [State of Jharkhand and Another Vs. Harihar Yadav and Others] was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the concept of social justice under the Constitution, role of a model employer in a welfare State and the conduct of both the States directing that :-

¶25

(i) The employees who were paid certain amount after this Court had directed for deposit of rupees fifty crores by the State of Bihar and have not been absorbed by JHALCO, they should be paid their salary from 1.1.1995 till 29.12.2001.

¶26

(ii) The State of Bihar shall comply with the directions within a period of three months from today as they are aware of the names of employees who had been paid proportionally out of the deposit made earlier.

¶27

(iii) The State of Jharkhand shall pay from 29.12.2001 till 13.9.2004. We have fixed the cut-off date for the State of Jharkhand as it had issued the notification on 29.12.2001

¶28

-3-

¶29

creating an erroneous impression and confusion. The date for State of Bihar has been determined regard being had to the date the Central Government took a decision asking the State of Bihar to go for liquidation.

¶30

(iv) The State of Jharkhand shall pay the amount within a period of four months to those employees or their legal representatives of the employees who have received the amount in proportion from the State of Bihar.

¶31

(v) The State of Bihar shall deduct the amount already paid by virtue of the order passed by this Court. However, the State of Jharkhand shall pay the entire amount of salary for the period as directed by us as it is clear from the record that it has not paid anything to the employees.

¶32

(vi) Both the States shall compute the salary component after granting the benefit of pay revision which has been extended to other employees.

¶33

(vii) The amount as directed to be paid, shall be paid with 7.5% simple interest per annum.

¶34

(viii) The claim for absorption stands closed.

¶35

5. In view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter has been set at rest and accordingly the petitioners are directed to make fresh representations before the Managing Director, BHALCO (for the period from 01.09.1994 to 29.12.2001) and Managing Director, JHALCO (for the period from 29.12.2001 till 2004) who will pass speaking order taking into account the directions made in the case of Kapila Hingorani and observations made hereinabove, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Managing Director, BHALCO and the Managing Director, JHALCO, if found that the petitioners are entitled for the salary in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they shall release the same within eight weeks thereafter.

¶36

6. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶37

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶38

Birendra

Deglal Mahto and Ors. v. Water Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deglal Mahto and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Chandra Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Prem Chandra Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

MD Aslam Vs Collectariate

Bikash Kumar Mishra Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

Kewal Singh Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors.

Bijan David Balmuchu Bijan B Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Vijay Chandra Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Prem Chandra Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

MD Aslam Vs Collectariate

Bikash Kumar Mishra Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

Kewal Singh Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors.

Bijan David Balmuchu  Bijan B Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Bijan David Balmuchu Bijan B Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.