Disposed

Anzora Kachhap v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Feb 2020WPC/75/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondents to examine petitioners' service records in light of prior judgment Mariyam Tirkey and decide within four weeks on granting leave encashment and unutilized earned leave benefits, with a further two-week window to extend entitlements if eligible.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to decide on leave encashment and unutilized earned leave within four weeks in accordance with Mariyam Tirkey, and to extend benefits within two weeks if eligible.

Anzora Kachhap Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 75 of 2020

¶4

Anzora Kachhap

¶5

Suniti Ekka

¶6

Putul Rana

¶7

… …. Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State of Jharkhand

¶10

Secretary, School Education and Literacy Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶11

Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶12

District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi

¶13

….. Respondents

¶14

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

¶15

----For Petitioners : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate For Respondents Mr. Gautam Kumar, SC (Mines)-I

¶16

------

¶17

03/ 03.02.2020 The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to pay the amount of leave encashment and their dues towards unutilized earned leave.

¶18

At the very outset, Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Mariyam Tirkey Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 506/2013 and analogous cases vide order dated 03.01.2014 and now upheld up to the Hon’ble Apex Court vide Judgment dated 15.12.2014 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(s) 20606-20607/2014 and the case of the present petitioners are squarely covered by that orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this writ petition may also be disposed of, granting similar benefits to this petitioners also.

¶19

Though no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents but learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that this case is fully covered by the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2013 & analogous cases . Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the orders passed in aforesaid cases. However, if the case of the petitioners are same and similar to that of the aforesaid cases then only the same benefit shall be extended to them, in accordance with law.

¶20

Be that as it may, having gone through the fair submissions of the

¶21

¶22

parties and in view of aforesaid judicial pronouncement, the case of the present petitioners should also be considered. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to take a decision in the matter of grant of amount towards leave encashment to the petitioners after due scrutiny of their relevant service records and the Judgment rendered in the case of Mariyam Tirkey (supra), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the petitioners are entitled for the said benefits, the same shall be extended to them, within a further period of two weeks.

¶23

With the aforesaid direction and observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

punit/

Anzora Kachhap v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anzora Kachhap 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Praveen Sultana Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saraswati Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Water Resources Department

Prakash Turi Vs the Jh Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Awadh Kishore Mandal Vs the Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Gauri Shankar Prasad Vs the Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director