Disposed

Pankuria Devi v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Through Its C M D And Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Jul 2019WPC/6273/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court treated the writ petition as a representation regarding family pension disbursement. It directed the respondents to file a reasoned order within six weeks, providing a hearing opportunity and extending full benefits if the petitioner is found entitled.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation; respondents to pass reasoned order within six weeks.

Pankuria Devi Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 6273 of 2016

Pankuria Devi

… Petitioner

Versus

Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through its CMD at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶8

Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited through its Managing Director at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶9

General Manager (HR) cum-General Administration at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶10

General Manager, Patratu thermal Power Station, Patratu, Ramgarh

¶11

... .. Respondents

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate

¶15

---

¶16

04/ 08.07.2019 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to pay the family pension of the petitioner from 50 % to 100 % w.e.f. 08.06.2013 while considering the fact that consequent upon the death of husband of the petitioner, respondents had divided the family pension between the petitioner and son from his second wife and natural guardian (Sukari Devi). However, the payment of 50 % family pension payable to said son has been stopped w.e.f. 08.06.2013 due to solemnization of his marriage of son on 29.04.2013. Consequent upon fixation of family pension to 100 %, to pay the difference of arrear of family pension from 08.06.2013 together with interest.

¶17

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the representation of the petitioner is still pending before the respondents, suffice it would be if the present writ petition be treated as a representation of the petitioner and a direction is given to the respondents to pass a reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner, within stipulated time.

¶18

No counter-affidavit has been filed. However, Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not object to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, let the present writ petition be treated as a representation of the petitioner and petitioner is directed to approach the respondent-Joint Secretary, JUUNL with a

¶20

¶21

copy of this writ petition and a copy of this order with any other document upon which she is relying, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass a speaking order assigning valid and concrete reason for consideration /non-consideration of the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law with a copy to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks thereafter. It is made clear that the respondents shall provide ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶22

Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled for the any of due benefits as claimed in prayer portion of the writ petition, the same shall be extended to her, within a period of six weeks, thereafter.

¶23

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. As a sequel to the disposal of the instant writ application, pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶24

punit/

Pankuria Devi v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Through Its C M D And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankuria Devi v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Through Its C M D 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

Anil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Secretary Home Jail and Disaster Management

Lakshmi Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Ruma Bose Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Rati Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahendra Prasad Sharma Vs Panchaitee Raj

Kauleshwari Charan Ram Vs Food Corporation Of India Through Its Chairman And Ors.