Dismissed

Ravindra Nath v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Dec 2021Cont.(Cvl)/573/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt application addresses delayed pension disbursement for retired employees aged over 75. The state and municipal corporation argued only partial disbursement. The court directed full equal pension payments regardless of age and dismissed the contempt application.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay pension to all entitled retired employees equally; contempt application dropped.

Ravindra Nath Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (C) No. 573 of 2020

¶2

Ravindra Nath.

¶3

Baidehi Singh.

¶4

Abdul Rasid.

¶5

Babul Kumar Lama.

¶6

Dularchandra Chodhri.

¶7

Madina Khatoon.

¶8

Savitri Devi.

¶9

Ganga Devi Masomat.

¶10

Savitri Devi.

¶11

10.Anuradha Kumari.

¶12

Brinda Prasad

¶13

Lalita Devi

¶14

Devnath Ram

¶15

Jagdish Ram.

¶16

Sarswati Devi

¶17

Rambabu Gupta

¶18

Girdhari Ram

¶19

Barun Kumar Rai

¶20

Harihar Singh

¶21

Abhay Kumar Singh

¶22

Tahal Mahto.

¶23

Ranjan Saran.

¶24

Puran Mahto.

¶25

Jagadish Mahto.

¶26

Tejlal Mahto.

¶27

Mosomat Fulan Devi

¶28

Saliman Khatun.

¶29

Raj Kumari Devi

¶30

Ramnandan Sharma

¶31

Ram Narayan Singh

¶32

Karu Ram

¶33

Indra Kumar Sharma

¶34

Kamla Devi 34. Aso Devi. …. …. Petitioners Versus

¶35

The State of Jharkhand.

¶36

Shri Vinay Kumar Choubey, Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Ranchi.

¶37

Ms. Madhvi Mishra, Town Commissioner (earlier known as Executive Officer), Hazaribag.

¶38

Shri Rohit Sinha, Deputy Town Commissioner (earlier known as Executive Officer) Giridih Municipal Corporation, Giridih.

¶39

Shri Arun Kumar Bharti, Executive Officer, Phusro Nagar Parishad, Bokaro. ….. … Opp. Parties With

¶40

Cont. Case (C) No. 87 of 2020

¶41

Jagdish Chaubey.

¶42

Md. Monifuddin Quraishi.

¶43

Raghunandan Prasad.

¶44

Md. Hussain.

¶45

-2-

¶46

Moti Ram.

¶47

Shivbalak Thakur.

¶48

Jeet Narayan Mahto.

¶49

Bhuneshwar Ram.

¶50

Mahabir Prasad Kushwaha

¶51

10.Nemchand Mahto.

¶52

11.Mahabir Ram.

¶53

Ahilya Kumari …. ….. Petitioners

¶54

Versus

¶55

The State of Jharkhand.

¶56

Sri Ajay Singh, Secretary, Urban Development Department,

¶57

Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶58

Dr. Bhuvnesh Pratap Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag.

¶59

Sri Kamaleshwar Prasad Singh, Chief Executive Officer-cum-Nagar Aayukt, Municipal Corporation, Hazaribag.

¶60

Sri Suresh Yadav, Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Ramgarh.

¶61

… … Opp. Parties

¶62

¶63

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK (Through Video Conferencing)

¶64

-----For the Petitioners : M/s Manon Tandon & Neha Bhardwaj, Advs. (in Cont. Case (c) No. 573/2020) Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate (in Cont. Case (c) No. 87573/2020) For the State : Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, AAG-I For the Municipal Corp. : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate -----

¶65

10 / 17.12.2021 It has been submitted by Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned Addl. Advocate General-I, representing the State, that in view of order and direction passed by this Court on 8.10.2021, a sizable amount of Rs. 3,93,08,450/- towards the arrear of pension to the retired employees of Hazaribagh Mines Board, who have attained the age of 75 years, has been released.

¶66

Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation does not dispute the contention of the State. However, it is being said that only 40% of the amount has been disbursed and rest 60% of the amount are yet to be disbursed.

¶67

This Court in W.P.(S) No. 6257 of 2018, by order dated

¶68

26.9.2019, had given a specific direction to the respondent State, which reads as under:-

¶69

-3-

¶70

“Since the arrears of pension have already been disbursed to the petitioners, the respondents are further directed to pay the amount of pension to the petitioners every month regularly, who are aged more than 75 years.”

¶71

However, the respondent State has misconstrued the intention of this Court and has ordered to disburse the amount towards pension to those only who have completed the age of 75 years. All the retired employees of the Municipal Corporation, like the petitioners, have equal right to get pension regularly irrespective of their age and the State cannot make artificial classification to shed its responsibilities.

¶72

Therefore, the State as well as Municipal Corporation are further directed to pay the pension to all the retired employees, who are entitled for the same. Let the entire amount be disbursed equally amongst the retired employees and if more fund is required, it is the duty of the Municipal Corporation to make requisition to the State and ask for allocation of more fund. Earlier it was held that Municipal Corporations will also raise their own fund, hence, it is the duty of the Corporations also to take the matter seriously, so that the pensionary benefits are disbursed to the petitioners and they are not deprived of their rights.

¶73

Since a sizable amount has already been disbursed, no contempt is made out and the same is hereby dropped. Accordingly, both these contempt applications are disposed of.

¶74

However, the petitioners are at liberty to file fresh writ petition, if they feel aggrieved.

¶75

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)

¶76

R.Kr.

Ravindra Nath v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Nath 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

Laxaminia Devi Vs the Bharat Coking Coal Limited

Arun Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Road Construction Department

Archana Sarojni Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of School Education and Literacy

Birsa Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hirdya Nand Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagdish Chaubey Vs the State of Jharkhand