Disposed

Chandreshwar Prasad Rai v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Aug 2019WPC/2879/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order disposing a writ petition seeking quashing of an order for recovery of penal rent. Court notes pension has been revised and directs petitioner to approach respondent with a fresh representation if arrear remains unpaid.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation before Respondent No. 4 within 2 weeks if arrear amount remains unpaid.

Chandreshwar Prasad Rai Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2879 of 2007

¶2

Chandreshwar Prasad Rai, son of Late R.B. Rai

¶3

… … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Secretary, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶7

The Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Circle, Hazaribagh

¶8

The Executive Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Division, Hazaribagh

¶9

The District Provident Fund Officer, Hazaribagh

¶10

The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶11

... ... Respondents

¶12

-----CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶13

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava (For R.6) Mr. Samir Kumar Lal, A.C. to S.C.II (For R.1 to 5)

¶14

-----

¶15

10/Dated 8^th August, 2019

¶16

Per Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

¶17

1. Heard Mr. Sumir Prasad, counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Lal, A.C. to S.C.II for the respondent State of Jharkhand and Mr. Sudarshan Srivastav for Respondent No.6.

¶18

2. The petitioner preferred this writ petition for quashing of the order dated 10.7.2006 (Annexure 7 to the writ application), whereby the penal rent @ Rs.1822/- per month from 01.12.2003 to the tune of Rs.72,880/- for not vacating the quarter after retirement, has been asked to be recovered.

¶19

By Order dated 20.7.2016, this Court directed the State to file counter affidavit stating whether pension of the petitioner has been revised or not pursuant to grant of benefit of second A.C.P. The State was also directed vide that order to state as to how much amount has been deducted as penal rent.

¶20

Pursuant to Order dated 20.7.2016, State has filed supplementary counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the pension amount has been calculated on the revised scale after giving the benefit of A.C.P.s and thereafter, the pension papers and original service book have been sent to the Accountant General,

¶21

-2-

¶22

Jharkhand for revision of petitioner’s pension and gratuity (Annexure B. series is to the supplementary counter affidavit).

¶23

The petitioner is also relying on Annexure A (Letter no. 1722 dated 01.7.2006) to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner.

¶24

3. At this stage, Mr. Sudarshan Srivastav, counsel appearing for the respondent Accountant General, draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the Accountant General, wherein it is stated that on receipt of sanction order as contained in letter No. 1878 dated 10/08/2016 from Respondent No.4, the office of the answering respondent had already revised and authorized the PPO & GPO in favour of the petitioner vide Authority letter No. PR-2/8001512209/RPEV/1600/2016-17/12686-687 dated 15/09/2016 with a copy to the petitioner.

¶25

4. Thus, it transpires that in view of Annexure A to the supplementary Counter Affidavit, which has also been annexed in the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner, on which the petitioner is relying and looking to the statement made in Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit of the office of the Accountant General, apparently, the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed.

¶26

5. At this stage, Mr. Sumir Prasad, counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the arrear amount along with interest in view of the earlier order of this Court has not been paid yet.

¶27

If it is so, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 4 within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this Order and Respondent No. 4, in turn, will decide the said representation by way of a speaking order taking into account the earlier order dated 11^th May, 2005 in W.P.(S) No. 2155 of 2005 of this Court as well as Order dated 09.02.2007 in Cont. Case (C ) No. 843 of 2005.

¶28

6. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶30

s.m

Chandreshwar Prasad Rai v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandreshwar Prasad Rai v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Chunchun Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ram Vilash Tiwary Vs Police

Shashi Bhusan Das Vs Central Coal Field Limited And O

Dr Nripendra Nath Thakur Vs Human Resource Development

Sanjay Kumar Savita Vs Road Construction

Ganesh Mahto Vs Union of India through the Regional Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund Region II And Ors.