Disposed

Smt Shiv Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Mar 2021WPC/623/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired Executive Officer, filed a writ petition seeking direction to fix and pay her superannuated pension and interest. The court directed her to file a fresh representation with the appropriate respondent, who must decide within eight weeks and release dues within six weeks if found payable.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation within two weeks; respondent to decide within eight weeks and release dues within six weeks if admitted.

Smt Shiv Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

---

¶4

W.P.(S) No. 623 of 2021

¶5

----

¶6

Smt. Shiv Kumari aged about 61 years, son of Sri Chunchun Kumar, resident of North Shivpuri, Hazaribgh, PO, PS and District -Hazaribag

¶7

….. Petitioner

¶8

-- Versus –

¶9

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶10

2.Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, PO, PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi

¶11

3.Director, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, PO, PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi

¶12

4.Executive Officer, Fushro Nagar Parisad, PO and PS Fushro, districtBokaro …... Respondents

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner :- Mr. N.K. Pandey, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Mr. Gaurav Raj, Advocate

¶16

¶17

02 /12.03.2021 Heard Mr. N.K. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gaurav Raj, the learned counsel for the respondent State.

¶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 upon the respondents to fix and make payment of pension of the petitioner who has superannuated from the service on 02.02.2020. The prayer for payment of salary with statutory interest w.e.f. February, 2019 to March, 2020 is also made in the writ petition.

¶20

The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer, Urban Development Department and was posted at Mines Board, Hazaribag in

¶21

¶22

the same capacity. The petitioner was transferred from Mines Board to Nagar Parishad and posted at Fushro in the district of Bokaro.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having unblemished career and the petitioner was retired on 02.02.2020 as Executive Officer, Fushro Nagar Parishad. The prayer made in the writ petition has not been redressed as yet and that is why the petitioner has come to this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has already filed a representation contained in Annexure-1 but no decision has been taken as yet on the said representation.

¶24

Mr. Gaurav Raj, the learned State counsel submits that the petitioner may file a fresh representation before the respondent no.4 who will take a decision in accordance with the rules, regulations and the guidelines.

¶25

In view of the above facts, the writ petition is being disposed of directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.4 within a period of two weeks.

¶26

If such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent no.4 shall take a decision on the representation of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks and will pass a reasoned order. 9. If the admitted dues of the petitioner is found to be payable, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner within six weeks further thereafter.

¶27

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition [W.P.(S) No. 623 of 2021] stands disposed of.

¶28

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)

¶29

SI/,

Smt Shiv Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shiv Kumari 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

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Secretary Education and Human Resources

Bhima Vs the Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Rajesh Hadi Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority Represented through Its Managing Director

Dr Kameshwar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Daya Nand Poddar Vs State of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Rai Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd.