Dismissed

Saroj Devi v. Water Resources Department

Jharkhand HC22 Jan 2020WPC/6033/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought annual increments and revised pension for her deceased husband. The Court held that the State was only obligated to grant such benefits if the employee applied for exemption during service. Dismissing the writ petition, the Court found no illegality in refusing the claim as no representation was ever made.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of maintainability due to absence of representation during the employee's service.

Saroj Devi Vs Water Resources Department — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 6033 of 2016

¶3

Saroj Devi. … …Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Nepal House,

¶7

Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.

¶8

The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Nepal House,

¶9

Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.

¶10

The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Nepal House,

¶11

Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.

¶12

The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of

¶13

Jharkhand, Ranchi Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.

¶14

Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶15

Accountant General ( A & E), Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S.

¶16

Doranda, District-Ranchi. … …Respondents

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

For the Petitioner :Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State :Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Sr. S.C. III. For the Accountant General :Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate.

¶20

¶21

07/ 22.01.2020 The original petitioner had approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to grant annual increment for July, 2013, July, 2014 and July, 2015 with interest and consequently revise pension.

¶22

The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The husband of the petitioner was initially appointed and joined as Junior Engineer on 05.02.1979 and subsequently he superannuated on 31.07.2015 as Assistant Engineer from the Water Resources Department at Chandil, Jamshedpur. The husband of the petitioner passed the professional examination in 2013 as it appears from memo No. 6849 dated 20.11.2013 where his name finds place at Serial No.47 and prior to that no examination was held and unfortunately no further opportunity has

¶23

¶24

been availed by the deceased husband of the petitioner and meanwhile he retired on 31.07.2015. After retirement, the deceased-husband of the petitioner made representation before the authorities for considering his case for grant of annual increments for July, 2013, July, 2014 and July, 2015 with interest. When the same was not paid, the petitioner has rushed to this Court for getting benefits of increment.

¶25

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the light of the resolution of the State Government exemption were to be granted to the employee from appearing in the departmental examination on attaining the age of 50. As the husband of the petitioner subsequently retired on 31.07.2015 and no examination was held prior to that, he is entitled for exemption. Learned Counsel submits that as the husband of the petitioner had already retired then there was no occasion to make application for exemption, it was incumbent upon the respondent-State to pass an orders for allowing the admissible increments even though no representation was made by the husband of the petitioner.

¶26

Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed.

¶27

Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, S.C. L & C III, learned Counsel for the State as well as Mr. Sudharshan Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 drawing the attention of the Court towards Annexure-F of the counter-affidavit filed by the State, submits that admittedly an employee is entitled for exemption after completion of 50 years of age but that cannot be automatically granted on completion of 50 years. An employee has to move the Department for getting benefits of exemption. In the instant case nothing has been brought on record to show whether the husband of the petitioner ever made any representation regarding exemption or regarding grant of increments and

¶28

¶29

as such the writ petition itself is not maintainable on that score alone and the same is fit to be dismissed.

¶30

Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner never made any representation during the period of his service either for exemption or for payment of increments. It was only after retirement, this writ petition has been filed without any representation to the authorities. In absence of any document showing application for exemption for increment, this writ petition is not fit for interference. No illegality is found in non-consideration of the case for want of representation.

¶31

The writ petition merits dismissal and hence it is hereby dismissed.

¶32

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

¶33

P.K.S.

Saroj Devi v. Water Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Devi v. Water Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahrani Devi Alias Ram Rati Devi Vs The Chairman Cum Chief Managing Director Bharat Cocking Coal Limited And Ors.

Singrai Tuti Vs Road Construction

Dr Pratik Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Tanuja Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Amar Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yogeshwar Paswan Vs Water Resources Department