Disposed

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

Jharkhand HC3 Mar 2021WPC/664/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired employee of JMADA, approached the High Court via writ petition seeking payment of arrears of salary, PF, DA, and other dues. The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation containing credentials, upon which the respondent Authority will decide and, if favorably, pay the admitted dues within stipulated timelines.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Secretary (Respondent No.2) within two weeks with credentials; directed the Authority to decide within eight weeks and pay benefits wi

Badal Chandra Layak Vs Jharkhand Mineral… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 664 of 2021

¶2

------

¶3

Badal Chandra Layak, aged about 60 years, son of Late Bisewar Layak, resident of Water Board Colony, Jharia, near RSP College Jharia, P.O. and P.S. Jharia, District-Dhanbad .... .... …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through its Chairman cum Managing Director, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad

¶6

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

¶7

Accounts Officer, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad

¶8

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

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mrs J. Mazumdar Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate

¶11

------

¶12

02/03.03.2021 Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, 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 retirement benefits and other dues such as arrears of salary, Provident Fund, Provident Fund with interest on the uncredited amount, arrears of Dearness Allowances, Group insurance with compound interest, amount of unused Earned Leave, gratuity as per office order no.207 dated 24.07.2008, difference amount of revised pay from 01.01.1996 on account of 5^th Pay Revision, difference amount of revised pay from 01.01.2006 on account of 6^th Pay Revision, difference amount on account of merger of 50% D.A. in basic pay, benefits of Assured Career Progression, arrears of regional allowance, arrears of interim assistance, arrears of dress allowances, amount of increment on account of stagnation of pay, statutory, compensatory and penal interest on the aforementioned amounts and other benefits.

¶15

Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Khalashi under the Jharkhand Mineral Area

¶16

¶17

Development Authority. The petitioner was superannuated on 31.10.2020. She further submits that after his retirement petitioner preferred several representations in view of Annexure-2 series, but no decision has been taken as yet.

¶18

Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, learned counsel for respondents-JMADA 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 two weeks from today. 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/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badal Chandra Layak v. Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Chairman Cum 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

Anil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

D P Sinha Vs Ms Coal India Limited through Its Chairman

Dr Jadav Dutta Vs State of Jharkhand

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

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

Bisni Devi Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Social Welfare Woman and Child Development Dept