Disposed

Sunil Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Dept of Urban Development and Housing

Jharkhand HC18 Nov 2021WPC/1774/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning post-superannuation benefits, the High Court did not adjudicate merits but directed the Managing Director of MADA to consider the petitioner's claim within six weeks, pass a reasoned order, and pay admitted dues within two weeks if applicable, dismissing the petition thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directing MADA to consider the petitioner's claim within six weeks, pass a reasoned order within a further six weeks, and pay admitted dues within two weeks if found payable.

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 1774 of 2021

Sunil Kumar

… …. Petitioner

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Dept. of Urban Development and Housing, 4^th Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 834004.

¶7

Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through the Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, LC Road, PO & PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand 826001.

¶8

The Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, LC Road, PO & PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand 826001.

¶9

The Secretary, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, LC Road, PO & PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand 826001.

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Mahavir Prasad Sinha, Advocate

¶13

------

¶14

03/ 18.11.2021 The petitioner, who was an employee of Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as MADA) has superannuated on 28.02.2021. The petitioner has approached this Court claiming his post retiral benefits and other benefits, as mentioned in prayer portion of the writ petition, which the petitioner is entitled to receive from MADA.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suffice it would be if a direction is given to the Managing Director, MADA to decide the claim of the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner and further the Managing Director, MADA be directed to pay the admitted dues of the petitioner as per the scheme.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the MADA has no objection, if a direction is given to the Managing Director, MADA to dispose of the representation of the petitioner and to pay the admitted dues to the petitioner on account of his post retiral benefits as per the scheme.

¶17

¶18

Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions of the parties and without going into the merits of this case, I hereby direct the petitioner to file a detailed representation claiming his post retiral benefits as also other benefits under different heads before Managing Director, MADA along with a copy of this order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the Managing Director, MADA shall consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of the scheme formulated by the MADA for payment of post retiral benefits and other benefits to the employees and will pass a reasoned order, within a further period of six weeks. If any amount is found payable, the said amount would be paid to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks thereafter as per the scheme.

¶19

If any portion of the claim of the petitioner is denied or disputed by the respondents, the reasons for such denial, should be communicated to the petitioner within the said period.

¶20

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

¶21

R.Kr./ k

Sunil Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Dept of Urban Development and Housing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Dept of Urban Development and Housing

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

Rabindra Kumar Panigrahi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Pr Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt

Krishna Shankar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Urban Development

Afrin Reza Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Child Development and Women Development Deptt

Tetari Devi W/O Ganauri Das Vs Ms Bharat Cocking Coal Limited Through Its Managing Director And Ors.

Dharmendra Ban Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Pr Secretary Health Medical Education and Family Deptt

Rajesh Kumar Singh And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.