Allowed

Moti Gope And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC17 Aug 2019WPC/4892/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of illegal retirement orders. Court allowed petition, directing respondents to deem petitioners in service until age 60 and pay consequential benefits including salary, based on Supreme Court rulings enhancing retirement age.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners entitled to continue service till age 60 and all benefits including salary; respondents directed to pass appropriate order for payment of consequential benefits.

Moti Gope And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S) No. 4892 of 2009

¶3

¶4

Moti Gope, S/o- Late Mitan Gope @ Ketan Gope, semi-skilled employee, Dhorakola Division, Koderma Mica Unit, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Koderma, permanent resident of village-Parho, PO-Saphi, PS&District-Koderma (Jharkhand).

¶5

Bandhan Gope, S/o- Late Jagi Gope, semi-skilled employee, Dhorakola Division, Koderma Mica Unit, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Koderma, permanent resident of village-Parho, PO-Saphi, PS&District-Koderma (Jharkhand)

¶6

….. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Department of Mines & Geology, Nepal House, PO&PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi 834002

¶9

2.M/s Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Nepal House Area, PO&PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi-834002 through its Managing Director.

¶10

3.The Mines Agent, Koderma Mica Unit, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., At,PO,PS&District Koderma (Jharkhand)

¶11

…... Respondents

¶12

---------

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶14

For the Petitioners : Mr. Naresh Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Ruby Yadav, A.C. to S.C. II For the JSMDC Ltd. : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate

¶15

---------

¶16

Order No. 05/Dated: 17th August, 2019 Per Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.:

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶18

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing the letter Nos. 130/09 & 131/09, both dated 24.08.2009 issued by the respondent no.3 through which the petitioners have illegally been retired from the service of the Corporation with effect from the afternoon of 01.09.2009 on attaining their respective age of 58 years against the decision of the Corporation though the age of retirement has been enhanced to 60 years with retrospective effect w.e.f. 20.12.2004 and also against the policy decision of State Government and further prayed that concerned respondent may be directed to allow the petitioners to continue in the

¶19

¶20

service of the Corporation till they attain their superannuation age of 60 years in tune with the policy decision of the State Government.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the date of birth of both the petitioners is 02.09.1951 and they were appointed under the erstwhile company running the Mica Mines as an Unskilled Worker in the year, 1972 at Dhorakola Division and subsequently the Mica Mines were taken over by the State Government and were handed over to the respondent Corporation with effect from 09.3.1986 to manage and run the Mines under the order dated 27.8.1985 of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 35248-54 of 1985 (in Civil Appeal Nos. 3013-18 and 2116 of 1982) “ State of Bihar and Ors. etc. Vs. R.C. Sarkar and Ors .”. It is further stated that the petitioners have wrongly been retired from the service on 01.09.2009 on attaining age of 58 years. Actually the petitioners would retire from service on attaining age of 60 years on 01.09.2011.

¶22

From perusal of the counter affidavit dated 23.02.2010, it appears that State of Jharkhand has enhanced the retirement age of the State Government employees from 58 years to 60 years w.e.f October, 2004. It further appears that the JSMDC also adopted the same for its employee vide Board Meeting Resolution No. 14/D/7 dated 24.9.2005 and implemented the enhanced date of retirement for its employee with retrospective date. It further appears that the Board of Directors of the Corporation in its 11^th Board meeting held on 20.12.2004 vide Agenda No. 11/9 have agreed and resolved that the superannuation age with regard to the employees of the Corporation be increased at par with the State Government employees. It is stated that the Corporation had agreed in principle to enhance the age of superannuation of its employee at par with the State Government employees from 58 years to 60 years. It further appears that the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that employee posted and working at the Koderma Mica Unit of the Respondent Corporation are entitled to continue in service till they attain 60 years of age and whoever paid their wages till 58 years of

¶23

¶24

age shall continue to pay their wages and allowances till they attain the age of 60 years.

¶25

The coordinate Benches of this Court taking into account the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court have also disposed of the writ petitions vide W.P.(S) No. 757 of 2008, W.P.(S) No. 5835 of 2008, W.P(S) No. 3569 of 2009 and W.P.(S) No. 3888 of 2014 and also by this Hon'ble Court vide orders passed in W.P.(S) No. 5881 of 2009 and W.P.(S) No. 6154 of 2010 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners therein in accordance with the decisions rendered by the Hob'ble Apex Court and after scrutiny of relevant documents, if it is found that the petitioner's grievances are genuine and the case of the petitioners is squarely covered with aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, legally admissible dues shall be paid to the petitioners.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and coordinate Benches of this Court and also by this Court, this Court is inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the petitioners are entitled to retire from the service at the age of 60 years. Thus, it will be deemed that the petitioners continued in service till attaining the age of 60 years and they would retire from service on 01.09.2011 and not on 01.09.2009. Consequently they will be entitled to get all the benefits including the salary as they were working in the Corporation till the date of retirement.

¶27

This Court expects that the respondents shall pass an appropriate order for payment of consequential benefits as early as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶28

With the aforesaid observation, this writ application is allowed and stands disposed of.

¶29

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶30

Tanuj/Raja

Moti Gope And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moti Gope And Anr. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indira Tewary Vs Siddhu Kanhu Murmu University

Nawal Kishore Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Bijay Kumar Keshri and Anr. Vs Secretary Department of Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Jharkhand and Ors.

Uma Nath Mehta Vs C.M.D.,Mineral Area Developmen

Ram Pravesh Tiwary Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Janki Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.