Allowed

Poulus Horo And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC18 Feb 2021WPC/4735/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging departmental orders directing recovery of Reduced Pay (R.P.P.) from retired petitioners. Court allowed petition, quashing orders to recover already paid R.P.P. amounts based on settled legal position.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders (Memo No.232/09 and Office Order No.332/09) quashed to prevent recovery of R.P.P. amount already paid from 1.1.1996 to 31.01.2009. Retirement benefits to remain unaffected.

Poulus Horo And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No.4735 of 2009

¶4

¶5

Poulus Horo

¶6

Chakradhar Biruly

¶7

Nuneshwar Soren

¶8

Subhash Chandra Singh

¶9

Rabindra Nath Biruly … … Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Jharkhand.

¶12

Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶13

Director Inspector General Wireless, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶14

Superintendent of Police, Department of Wireless, Jharkhand, Ranchi. … … Respondents

¶15

¶16

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶17

¶18

For the Petitioner :Ms. Puja Agrawal, Adv. For the Res.State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, ……….

¶19

¶20

11/18.02.2021

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties through

¶22

V.C.

¶23

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners for the following reliefs:-

¶24

(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.02.09 issued vide Memo No.232/09 and office order No.332/09 dated 20.03.09 issued vide Memo No. 838 passed by Superintendent of Police Wireless Jharkhand Ranchi, whereby and where under the respondents have ordered for deduction of the entire amount of R.P.P. from 1.1.1996 and

¶25

¶26

further fixation of pay in the revised new pay scale by virtue of 6^th pay revision after deducting the amount paid by way R.P.P. from 1.1.96.

¶27

(b) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the amount deducted from 01.01.1996 to fix new pay scale including the R.P.P. amount.

¶28

3. Ms. Puja Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the instant writ application is now no more res-integra that the R.P.P amount; which was ordered to be recovered with effect from 1.1.1996 till the date of impugned order, is not sustainable in the eye of law. She fairly submits that since all the petitioners have retired; as such she is only concerned that no recovery should be made as the R.P.P. amount has already been paid to the petitioner long back with effect from 1.1.1996 till 20.03.2009.

¶29

4. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent-State fairly submits that no recovery has been done and referred to paragraph No.13 of the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that as per the chart the petitioners received R.P.P amount from 1.1.1996 to 30.1.2009 and their R.P.P amount was only withheld from 31.1.2009 subject to final verification of revised pay of 1996. It has been further stated that the R.P.P amount already paid to these petitioners has not been recovered from them as yet.

¶30

¶31

In this view of the matter, he submits that the instant writ application may be disposed of by directing the respondent not to recover the R.P.P. amount which has already been paid to these petitioners as the issue has already been settled by catena of judgments. Mr. Krishna fairly referred the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (CVL) 029558 of 2009 dated 16.11.2009 and submits that the stand of the State was rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court and it was directed that no recovery should be made with respect to R.P.P. amount which has already been paid.

¶32

5. Having regards to the facts of the case and settled position of law that no R.P.P amount can be recovered; the instant writ application is, hereby, allowed and the impugned order as contained in Memo No.232/09 dated 10.02.09 and office order No.332/09 dated 20.03.09 as contained in Memo No. 838, passed by Superintendent of Police, Wireless, Ranchi, are, hereby, quashed and set aside to the extent that the entire R.P.P amount which was paid from 1.1.1996 till 31.01.2009 shall not be recovered from these petitioners; however, that will not affect to the revised salary/pension of the petitioners in accordance with law applicable for the time being enforced.

¶33

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶34

Fahim /-

Poulus Horo And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poulus Horo And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gandauri Ram Agrwal Vs Central Coalfield Limited And or

Kuldip Mishra Vs Education

Ram Bishun Singh Vs Forest

Krishnadeo Thakur And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Siyaram Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Amarnath Madhu Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.