Allowed

Kamlesh Devi v. Law Department

Jharkhand HC11 Feb 2020WPC/2223/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought to quash orders reducing the pay-scale and fixing pension at a reduced rate. Relying on related cases where such orders were quashed, the court directed the state to extend all consequential benefits to the petitioner as enjoyed by others in similar situations.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to extend all consequential benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law as extended to others similarly situated within three months.

Kamlesh Devi Vs Law Department — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S).No. 2223 of 2016

¶3

¶4

Kamlesh Devi

¶5

State of Jharkhand.

¶6

The Secretary, Law (Judl.) Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶7

The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶8

The Assistant Accountant General/ Sr. Accounts Officer/ Accounts Officer, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶9

The Accountant, Civil Court Bokaro.

¶10

The District Treasury Officer, Bokaro.

¶11

The Pr. District & Sessions Judge, Bokaro.

¶12

… ... …. … Respondents

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mrs. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Mahua Palit, Advocate, Ms. Ruby Pandey, Advocate Ms. Aprajita Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Sr. SC-II

¶16

¶17

07/ 11.02.2020 Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 23.12.2015, whereby the pay-scale of her husband has been reduced. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 22.01.2016, whereby pension of her husband has been fixed in reduced pay and the respondents be directed not to adjust the amount of DCRG in terms of the order dated 22.01.2016 and to re-fix the same including other monetary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn at the time of retirement of her husband and to pay the entire dues and pension on that basis within a specified period. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents not to give effect to the cancellation order and not to reduce the pay of her husband and the benefit accrued on the time bound promotion of her husband. The respondents be further directed to pay all pensionary benefits including family with interest for the undue delay in payment of the same.

¶18

At the very outset, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ application is squarely covered by the judgment/ order dated 13.09.2017, passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 2443 of 2016 (Chitaranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors) and also the order dated 27.08.2018 passed in case of W.P.(S) No. 3396 of 2016 (Umesh Chandra Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors) . Learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid cases the impugned order dated 23.12.2015 has already been quashed and set aside and as such, this case may be disposed of in terms of order passed in

¶19

¶20

the aforesaid cases.

¶21

On the other hand, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that admittedly the husband of petitioner did not clear the departmental examination and as such, the ACP benefits given to him was rightly withdrawn. Further, it has been argued that passing of the departmental examination was the mandatory requirement for the regular promotion as also for financial upgradation. Mr. Banerjee further argues that as far as judicial discipline is concerned since the order dated 23.12.2015 has already been quashed and set aside and there is nothing on record to show as to whether any appeal has been filed against the order passed by this Court and as such, the order of this Court attends its finality.

¶22

Be that as it may, the order under question i.e. order dated 23.12.2015, fell for consideration before this Court in case of W.P.(S) No. 2443 of 2016 (Chitaranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors) and also in case of W.P.(S) No. 3396 of 2016 (Umesh Chandra Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors), which was disposed of on 13.09.2017 and 27.08.2018 respectively and as such, when the impugned order itself has been quashed and set aside, petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits..

¶23

Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents to extend all consequential benefits to the present petitioner, in accordance with law, what has been extended to other similarly situated persons, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

kunal/-

Kamlesh Devi v. Law Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Devi v. Law Department

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

Rukmini Devi Vs the Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Suman Kumari Minor Represented through Its Maternal Grandfather Guhi Ram Bauri Vs Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Yogendra Prasad Sinha Vs B C C L Through G M And Ors.

Ram Prawesh Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anju Devi Vs State Of Jharkhand Through Secretary Education And Human Resources And Ors.

Janardan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand