Disposed

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

Jharkhand HC5 Mar 2021WPC/227/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired government employee, filed a writ petition claiming payment of gratuity and interest for 20 years of service. The court directed him to submit a fresh representation to respondent no.3 for reconsideration of the gratuity claim, with a time-bound direction to the authority to pass a reasoned order and release benefits if due.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file fresh representation with Respondent No. 3 within two weeks; authority to consider claim and pass order within eight weeks; payment within six weeks if decided in favour.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.227 of 2021

¶2

------

¶3

Prakash Bhattacharjee, aged about 61 years, S/o Late K. Bhattacharjee, resident of Ghatshila College Road, P.O. & P.S. Ghatshila, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, MDI Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶6

Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶7

State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, State Project Office, Old HEC High School, JSCA Road, Sector-3, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶8

Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

¶9

The District Education Officer-cum-DPO, Jharkhand Education Project, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Kadma, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

¶10

Block Education Extension Officer-cum-Coordinator, Block Resource Centre, Dhalbhumgarh, P.O. & P.S. Dhalbhumgarh, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Kashyap, Advocate For the Respondents-State : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P. V For the Respondent-JEPC : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate

¶13

------

¶14

03/05.03.2021 Heard Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as Mr. Krishna Murari, learened counsel for the respondent-JEPC.

¶15

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.

¶16

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for payment of Gratuity admissible to the petitioner with statutory interest as well as interest on delayed payment on account of 20 years of service rendered as an Accountant-cum-Computer Operator in Dhalbhumgarh Block, Resource Centre, Jharkhand Education Project, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.

¶17

Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner discharged from Indian Air Force on 31.05.1993 and re-employed in the service under respondents on 01.07.1999 as an Accountant-cum-Computer Operator in the office of Block Education

¶18

¶19

Extension Officer-cum-Coordinator, Block Resource Centre, Dhalbhumgarh. On completion of 60 years of age, the petitioner retired on 28.02.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached respondent no.5 by way of filing representations which is Annexure 5 series to the writ petition for payment of gratuity but no decision has been taken as yet.

¶20

Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as Mr. Krishna Murari, learened counsel for the respondent-JEPC jointly submit that in the light of prayer, the writ petition can be disposed of directing the competent authority to take decision in accordance with Rules, Regulations and Guidelines.

¶21

In view of above facts, the writ petition is being disposed of directing the petitioner to approach respondent no.3 by way of filing fresh representation within a period of two weeks. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent no.3 shall consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with Rules, Regulations and Guidelines particularly considering that all the retiral benefit has been paid except Gratuity as prayed in the writ petition and will pass reasoned order within a period of eight weeks further thereafter. It is needless to say that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the benefit of same shall be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of six weeks further thereafter.

¶22

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶23

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J . )

¶24

Anit

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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