Disposed

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

Jharkhand HC5 Mar 2021WPC/196/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired employee of JMADA, sought a writ petition directing the respondent authority to pay owed pension, gratuity, and leave encashment. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation for reconsideration of dues.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file fresh representation within three weeks for reconsideration of admission of dues and payment proceedings.

MD Hasim Khan Vs the Jharkhand Mineral… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.196 of 2020

¶2

------

¶3

Md. Hasim Khan, aged about 61 years, son of late Sher Khan, resident of Shamsher Nagar, Gali No. 12, P.O. –‘B’ Polytechnic, P.S. Bank More (Bhuli O.P.), District- Dhanbad .... .... …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through its Managing Director, having its office at Luby Circular Road, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad

¶6

The Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority having its office at Luby Circular Road, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad

¶7

The Secretary, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority having its office at Luby Circular Road, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad

¶8

.... .... .... Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate

¶11

------

¶12

04/05.03.2021 Heard Mr. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahavir Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for respondents-JMADA.

¶13

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.

¶14

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents for payment of provident fund with contributory benefits, gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance, difference of dearness allowances, benefits of 6^th pay revision w.e.f 01.01.2006, benefits of 7^th pay revision w.e.f 01.01.2016, benefits of ACP as per the letter no. 526 dated 31.12.2007 issued by the Managing Director, MADA as well as any other legitimate due to which the petitioner is entitled alongwith a cost of litigation and 12% interest upon the due amount from the date of his retirement on 28.02.2019 till the date of payment.

¶15

Mr. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 under the Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority. The petitioner was superannuated on 28.02.2019 from the post of Pump Khalasi. He further submits that after his retirement petitioner preferred representation in view of annexure-2 of the

¶16

¶17

writ petition, but no decision has been taken as yet.

¶18

Mr. Mahavir Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for respondentsJMADA submits that the petitioner may be directed to file fresh representation before respondent no.2 for needful who will consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with rules, regulations, guidelines and the schemes framed in this regard by JMADA.

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file fresh representation before respondent no.2 with all the credentials within three weeks. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period the respondent no.2 will take decision in accordance with rules, regulations, guidelines and the schemes framed in this regard by JMADA for release of the admitted dues within a period of eight weeks thereafter. It goes without saying that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the benefit of the same shall be accrued in favour of the petitioner within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶20

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J . )

¶22

Satyarthi/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Mohammad Mustafa Vs the State of Jharkhand

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

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