Disposed

Madan Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Jul 2019WPC/643/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired Bill Clerk, claimed entitlement to Assured Career Progression and Modified Assured Career Progression benefits denied after 32 years of service. The court directed the respondent-State to treat a fresh representation from the petitioner, pass a reasoned order within six weeks, and extend benefits within three weeks if eligible, before disposing the writ petition without f

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to file fresh representation; respondent to pass reasoned order on ACP/MACP within six weeks and extend benefits within further three weeks if eligible.

Madan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No.643 of 2019

Madan Prasad.

… …Petitioner

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

The Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi.

¶8

The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.

¶9

The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel AdminisTrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. … …Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

¶12

For the Petitioner :Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, A.C. to A.A.G.

¶13

¶14

02/ 03.07.2019 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for grant of benefit of 1^st and 2^nd Assured Career Progression Scheme as well as benefits of 3^rd Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme.

¶15

The factual exposition, as has been delineated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was appointed as Bill Clerk vide Memo No. 509 (I.M.) dated 01.08.1986 and subsequently vide memo No. 690 (I.M.) dated 21.10.1987 issued by the Director, Indigenous Medicine, Bihar, Patna. The service of the petitioner was confirmed by the Deputy Secretary cum Director, Indigenous Medicine, Bihar Patna vide Memo No.462 dated 19.06.1993. After bifurcation of the State, services of the petitioner was allocated to State of Jharkhand and petitioner joined his duties on 01.07.2006 in the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand and vide Memo No. 940(5) dated 14.07.2006 the petitioner has been allocated work. After working to the full satisfaction of the respondent-authorities, the petitioner superannuated from service as Bill Clerk on 31.01.2019 after completing about 32 years of regular service and Department has given NOC to him vide Memo No. 37(1) dated 23.01.2019.

¶16

¶17

It is specific case of the petitioner that even after serving the Department for 32 long years, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of Assured Career Progression as well as Modified Assured Career Progression.

¶18

Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for the benefits of 1^st and 2^nd Assured Career Progression Scheme as well as benefits of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme in accordance with law as per the scheme floated by the Government. Learned Counsel submits that though the benefits of Assured Career Progression as well as Modified Assured Career Progression ought to have been calculated by the respondent-authorities and pension ought to have been fixed in the revised pay after calculating the amount of A.C.P. benefits but the same has not been done which shows arbitrary action of the respondents.

¶19

Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that though in absence of any counter-affidavit, she is not in a position to state as to why even after retirement, benefits of Assured Career Progression has not been extended to the petitioner. However, learned Counsel submits that if the petitioner files a fresh representation, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and if the petitioner is found entitled for the said benefits, the same may be extended as per the direction of this Court.

¶20

After hearing the leaned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that suffice it would be if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation annexing all the documents relied upon and after receipt of the same the respondent-State shall pass a reasoned order regarding payment of ACP/MACP within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is found entitled, the benefits may be extended within a further period of three weeks.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

[Dr. S.N.Pathak,J.]

¶23

P.K.S.

Madan Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Sanjay Yadav Vs Health

MD Ainul Ali Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Human Resources Development Department

Smt Sheela Devi Vs Social Welfare Women And Child Development Dept

Vina Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Co. Operative Department

Nagendra Prasad Yadav Vs the Nilambar Pitambar University through Its Registrar

Shambhu Nath Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Co. Operative Department