Disposed

Lavanya Prabha Khalkho v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Sept 2020C.M.P./814/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking restoration of a contempt order regarding unremitted pensionary dues. The Court impleaded the respondent Bank due to calculation grievances but clarified its incapacity under contempt jurisdiction to adjudicate arithmetical disputes.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Bank impleaded; Liberty granted to approach Bank authority for calculation grievances.

Lavanya Prabha Khalkho Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

C.M.P. No. 814 of 2019

¶3

Lavanya Prabha Khalkho ----Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand.

¶5

Mrs. Tadasha Mishra, Special Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi---Opposite parties

¶6

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

¶7

Through: Video Conferencing

¶8

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, Sr. S.C.-II

¶9

¶10

09/ 18.09.2020 Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appears for the petitioner and Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, Sr. S.C.-II for the opposite party no. 2 and the State are present.

¶11

The instant petition is for restoration of Contempt Case (Civil) No. 787 of 2018, which was disposed of by order dated 2^nd August, 2019 on the basis of the show-cause filed by opposite party no. 2 that admissible pensionary dues i.e., pension, gratuity and unutilized earned leave encashment amount would be released to the petitioner, for which a request has been made to the office of learned Accountant General in terms of Notification no. 2234 dated 26^th April, 2016 followed-up by Letter no. 4051 dated 30^th July, 2019. A cost of Rs. 50,000/awarded by the instant order was earlier paid to the petitioner. However, petitioner approached this Court in the present matter alleging non-compliance of remaining part of the order relating to disbursement of pensionary dues within the stipulated period. This Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to make a request for revival of contempt petition.

¶12

During pendency of this petition, opposite party-official of the State have filed more than one show cause, the first one is dated 19^th December, 2019, the second is dated 7^th February, 2020 and thereafter one more supplementary showcause has been filed in the nature of supplementary counter affidavit on 19^th August, 2020. By the last show-cause, opposite party no. 2 has stated that requisite authority letter for payment for revised pension, gratuity, leave encashment and arrears of difference amount have been issued for payment to the petitioner and cost of Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid. Referring to the rejoinder of the petitioner filed earlier , alleging certain error /mistake in calculation chart of difference of pension and family pension, it has been stated that the concerned Bank has been asked by letter no. 1056 dated 27^th February, 2010 to furnish details about the payment made to the petitioner and also the details relating to query made by the petitioner in her rejoinder (Annexure-A). The Bank has furnished the calculation

¶13

chart through letter no. 1056 dated 29^th February, 2020 containing calculation of difference of pension and family pension (Annexure-B Series). As such, the grievance raised by the petitioner in relation to error in calculation of difference of Pension and Family Pension is not directed against the officials of the State/opposite party no. 2 but with the Bank which therefore becomes necessary party in this case. Opposite party has sought apology for inconvenience caused to the Court.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the error in calculation by the Bank is clearly demonstrable. However, because of the petitioner’s turning Covid positive in the past 10 days, she has not been able to file reply thereto. However, he submits that Bank may also be impleaded as party as the grievance of the petitioner cannot be addressed solely by the opposite party no. 2.

¶15

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and taken note of the pleadings and the show –cause filed by opposite party no. 2 one after the other.

¶16

As on date, it can be said that from the end of opposite party no. ,2 compliance has been made, though petitioner seems to be having some grievance relating to calculation of the amount relating to difference of pension and family pension . It may lie with the Bank authorities also.

¶17

Therefore, having regard to the specific statement made on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in the last show-cause dated 19^th August, 2020, the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of India, Ashok Nagar Branch, Ranchi is impleaded as opposite party no. 3 in the instant case. Let such addition be carried out by the Registry in the array of opposite parties.

¶18

However, in contempt jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to enter into the computation of amount relating to difference of pension and family pension . As such, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under the Bank/opposite party no. 3 in relation to her aforesaid grievances. Needless to say, if the opposite party no. 3 deems it necessary, he may undertake correspondence on the subject with the opposite party no. 2 for redressal of the grievances of the petitioner. In case, opposite party no. 3 does not find any error in computation of the amount relating to difference of pension and family pension , the same be communicated to the petitioner by way of reasoned order within reasonable time.

¶19

The instant petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶20

( Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

Lavanya Prabha Khalkho v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lavanya Prabha Khalkho 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

Julius Kachhap Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Mamta Singh Vs Ramayan Singh Bisen

Bablu Sardar Vs the State of Jharkhand

M S Ajmani Infrastructure and Projects P Ltd. through Its Director Kunal Ajmani Vs Smt Vandana Dadel Now Smt Pooja Singhal Secretary Art Culture and Sports Development

Surdhania Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Minakshi Hembrom Vs Rahul Kumar Ranjan