Disposed

Mohammad Mustafa v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Mar 2021WPC/126/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning arrears of group provident fund and group life insurance, the Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the appropriate statutory authority. The petition was disposed of without adjudicating on the merits of the entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation before Respondent 5 within two weeks; Respondent 5 to pass reasoned order within eight weeks and release benefit within six weeks if decided in favour

Mohammad Mustafa Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

1 [ W.P.(S) No. 126 of 2021 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 126 of 2021

¶4

---- Mohammad Mustafa, aged about 63 years, s/o late Mohammed Ishaq, Village-Irrigation Division, Bundu, PS-Bundu, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand, Pin Code-835204, State-Jharkhand ….. Petitioner

¶5

-- Versus --

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2.The Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Nepal House, Doranda, PO and PS-Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002

¶8

3.The Director, Water Resource Department, Nepal House, Doranda, PO and PS-Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002

¶9

4.The Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Department, Nepal House, Doranda, PO and PS-Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002

¶10

5.Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Bundu, PO and PS-Bundu, Ranchi

¶11

6.The State of Bihar

¶12

7.The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Near Shagun Hall, North Anandpuri, PO and PS-Anandpuri, Patna, Bihar-800001

¶13

8.Executive Engineer, Irrigation Canal Division, Folwariya, Shirdala, Rajauli, PO+PS-Rajauli, Nawada …... Respondents

¶14

¶15

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶16

For the Petitioner :- Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate For Resp.Nos.1-5 :- Mr. O.P. Tiwary-GP-III For Resp.Nos.6-8 :- Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate

¶17

¶18

3 /05.03.2021 Heard Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. O.P. Tiwary, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1-5 and Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.6-8.

¶19

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

¶20

2 [ W.P.(S) No. 126 of 2021 ]

¶21

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction to pay the arrears of group provident fund and group life insurance amount for the period 1982 to 2004 with interest.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired on 28.02.2017 from Bundu in the district of Ranchi. The petitioner was working as driver w.e.f 01.05.1982 in the work charge establishment and in view of his long service the petitioner’s service was regularized by order dated 02.07.2004 by the Executive Engineer, Bundu w.e.f 01.05.1992. After his retirement, the rest of the retiral dues have already been paid to the petitioner, except the amount of group provident fund and group life insurance for the period 1982 to 2004. She submits that the petitioner has already approached the respondent no.5.

¶23

Mr. O.P. Tiwary, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the petitioner may move afresh by way of filing a fresh representation before the respondent no.5 who will take a decision and will pass the reasoned order.

¶24

In that view of the matter and considering that the petitioner has already retired on 28.02.2017, the writ petition is being disposed of directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.5 within a period of two weeks.

¶25

If such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent no.5 shall take a decision in accordance with the rules, regulations and the guidelines and considering this aspect of the matter that the rest of the amount has already been released in favour of the petitioner except as prayed in the writ petition and will pass a reasoned order within eight weeks thereafter. The statutory interest shall also be considered by the respondent State while deciding such representation. 8. It is needless to say that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the benefit of the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner within six weeks thereafter.

¶26

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

¶27

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)

¶28

SI/

Mohammad Mustafa v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Mustafa 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

Siddhant Dilip Jangam Vs Coal India Ltd. Through Its Chairman And Ors.

Brahmeshwar Singh Vs the Union of India

Raj Mohan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Bhattacharjee Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

MD Hasim Khan Vs the Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Paresh Chandra Das Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Pr Secretary Higher and Technical Education Deptt