Disposed

Raj Mohan Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Mar 2021WPC/3226/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition seeking MACP benefits and pension for a superannuated peon. The High Court held that since the representation is pending with the department, it directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within two weeks and directed the authorities to decide and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file fresh representation within two weeks; respondent to decide within eight weeks and grant benefit within six weeks if favoured.

Raj Mohan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

1 [ W.P.(S) No. 3226 of 2020 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

W.P.(S) No. 3226 of 2020

¶5

----

¶6

Raj Mohan Prasad, aged about 65 years, s/o Pundeo Bhagat, r/o Village-Masan Thana Manikpur, PO and PS-Jadopur, District-Gopalganj, Bihar ….. Petitioner

¶7

-- Versus --

¶8

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶9

2.The Secretary, Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department, Ranchi, r/o At-Project Building, Dhurwa, PO and PS-Dhurwa, DistrictRanchi, Jharkhand

¶10

3.The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Agriculture Marketing Board, Ranchi, At-Agriculture Marketing Board Office Itki Road, Hehal, PO and PSHehal, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶11

4.The Junior Plant Protection Officer Dumka, At-Plant Protection Officer, Dumka, PO and PS-Dumka, District-Dumka, Jharkhand

¶12

5.The Accountant General, Ranchi, Jharkhand, At-North Office Para, Shyamali Colony, PO and PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶13

…... Respondents

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶15

For the Petitioner :- Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Mr. K.K. Singh, SC-VI For Resp.Mkt.Board:- Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate For Resp.Acct.Gen. :- Mr. Arvind Kumar Mehta, Advocate

¶16

¶17

3 /04.03.2021 Heard Mr. S.K. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.K. Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent State, Mr. Shivam Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent Marketing Board and Mr. Arvind Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Accountant General.

¶18

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.

¶19

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of Second Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) and pension with all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon on 17.01.1976 in Agriculture (Plant Protection) and Sugarcane Development Department, Latehar. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred on

¶21

2 [ W.P.(S) No. 3226 of 2020 ]

¶22

16.02.1979 in the office of Bihar Plant Protection Officer, Gaya. Vide notification dated 24.02.2006 the petitioner has been provided the benefit of 1^st ACP on 09.08.1999 and 2^nd ACP on 17.01.2000. After the cadre division the petitioner has been transferred in the office of Agriculture Director (Plant Protection), Ranchi as Peon on 02.07.2007. The petitioner was transferred to the office of Plant Protection Supervisor Madhupur, District-Deoghar in the month of August, 2007. The petitioner superannuated on 31.07.2015. The petitioner has received all the retiral benefits, except pension.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already been superannuated but the pension has not been fixed as yet and the 3^rd MACP has also not been provided to the petitioner and for that, the petitioner has already approached Jharkhand Agricultural Marketing Board.

¶24

The learned counsel for the respondent State and the learned counsel for the respondent Accountant General are submitting that if the representation is there, that can be taken care of by the concerned Department.

¶25

Mr. Arvind Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondent Accountant General submits that certain queries were made for fixation of pension and after receiving of the same the office of Accountant General will take further steps.

¶26

In view of the above facts and considering that the representation of the petitioner is still pending, the writ petition is being disposed of directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the concerned respondent within a period of two weeks.

¶27

If such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the concerned respondent shall take decision in accordance with the rules, regulations and the guidelines and will pass the reasoned order within a period of eight weeks further thereafter.

¶28

It goes without saying that if any decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the benefit of the same shall be provided to the petitioner within six weeks further thereafter.

¶29

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

¶30

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)

¶31

SI/,

Raj Mohan Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Mohan Prasad 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

Yadunandan Turi Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Badal Chandra Layak Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Navin Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary School Education and Literacy Department

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

Brahmeshwar Singh Vs the Union of India

Nisha Rani Hassa Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Pr Secretary Deptt of Primary Secondary Higher and Mass Education