Disposed

Vinod Prasad Singh v. Minor Irrigation Department

Jharkhand HC1 Jun 2020WPC/396/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought exemption from departmental examination and payment of MACP arrears due to age. The Court directed the respondent authority to decide the claim via a fresh representation within four months, with payment order within three months if applicable.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file fresh representation with respondent no. 2; disposal by speaking order in 4 months; payment of MACP within 3 months if eligible.

Vinod Prasad Singh Vs Minor Irrigation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 396 of 2015

¶3

Vinod Prasad Singh ..… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶6

2.The Secretary (Water Resources) Minor Irrigation Department Ranchi, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶7

3.The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department Ranchi, near Kachhary Road, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi.

¶8

4.The Superintendent of Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle Ranchi, Abhiyantran Bhawan near Kachhary Road, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

¶9

5.Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Gumla, Karmtoli Road, P.O. Gumla, District-Gumla. ..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Aanya, A.C. to G.P-IV ---------

¶13

06/Dated: 1^st June, 2020

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

¶15

The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner

¶16

for a direction upon the respondent-authority for exemption from departmental examination of “Account” as the petitioner has attained the age of 50 years and further direction for payment of M.A.C.P and arrear of salary from 17.11.2003 to 31.01.2014.

¶17

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made several representations raising his grievances but the same has not been redressed. He further submits that similarly situated person has been granted this benefit.

¶18

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Staterespondent stating inter alia that except MACP all other retrial benefits has been paid to the petitioner. However, learned counsel submits that the petitioner may raise his grievance by filing a fresh representation because all the representations which has been referred by the petitioner are very old.

¶19

-2-

¶20

In view of the aforesaid facts and the argument adduced by the parties, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the respondent no. 2 who shall dispose of his representation by a speaking order after giving proper opportunities to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order/representation. If the authority decides that MACP is payable to the petitioner than in that case the amount payable to the petitioner shall be paid to him within a further period of three months from that date.

¶21

The petitioner at liberty to challenge the final decision taken by respondent no.2, if so advised.

¶22

With the aforesaid direction the instant application is disposed of.

¶23

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶24

Amardeep/

Vinod Prasad Singh v. Minor Irrigation Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Prasad Singh v. Minor Irrigation Department

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

Lailun Kumari and Ors. Vs Health

Shio Pujan Vs the Kolhan University through Its Registrar and Ors.

Braj Nandan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Kalidas Hembrom Vs Human Resources Department

Sunil Kumar Pandey and Ors. Vs Chief Secretory

Shiv Dayal Sah Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chief Managing Director and Ors.