Disposed

Daya Nand Poddar v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Mar 2021WPC/673/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A five-judge High Court of Jharkhand writ petition by retired non-Government aided school teachers seeking cash in lieu of unutilized earned leave was disposed of. The Court directed the Treasury Officer to release the already sanctioned amount within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.4 to release the sanctioned cash in lieu of unutilized earned leave in favour of petitioners within eight weeks.

Daya Nand Poddar Vs 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. 673 of 2021

¶5

----

¶6

1.Daya Nand Poddar, aged about 61 years, son of late Fakir Poddar, resident of Krishnapuri Road No.1-B, Near Sheela Kitchen Centre, PO and PS Chutia, District Ranchi-834001

¶7

2.Joseph Kerketta, aged about 62 years, son of Nicholas Kerketta, resident of Dela Toli Koka, Near A.G.Church School, PO Bariatu, PS Sadar, District Ranchi -834009

¶8

3.Rita Tirkey, aged about 61 years, wife of Primus Tirkey, resident of Lower Burdwan Compound, Near Bhagat Lodge, PO and PS Lower Bazar, District Ranchi-834001

¶9

4.Renuka Josephine Tigga, aged about 62 years, wife of Sunil Tigga, resident of House No.1721, Purulia Road, Barhi Toli, PO Ranchi, GPO, PS Lower Bazar, District Ranchi-834001

¶10

5.Prabhudan Topno, aged about 62 years, son of late Santosh Topno, resident of Kathar Toli (ganpat Nagar) Bahu Bazar, PO Church Road, PS Lower Bazar, District Ranchi -834001

¶11

6.Sr. Vinay Prabha Milred Kujur, aged about 62 years, daughter of Albinus Kujur, resident of St. Anne's Convent, Kanke, PO & PS Kanke, District Ranchi- 834006 ….. Petitioners

¶12

-- Versus –

¶13

1.State of Jharkhand

¶14

2.Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

¶15

3.Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

¶16

4.District Education Officer, Ranchi, PO-GPO, PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi

¶17

5.Treasury Officer, Ranchi, PO and PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi

¶18

…... Respondents

¶19

¶20

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶21

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate

¶22

¶23

/12.03.2021 Heard Mr. Bhanu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned counsel for the respondent State.

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

with their consent this matter has been heard.

¶28

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to pay the cash in lieu of unutilized earned leave to the petitioners who retired as teachers from the different nonGovernment aided schools within the District of Ranchi. The petitioner nos. 1 to 5 are the teachers and the petitioner no.6 is a Clerk. The petitioners are working in Anita Girls High School, Kanke, Ranchi, Saint Anne Girls High School, Ranchi and Gossner High School, Ranchi and all are non-Government aided minority schools. The petitioners have joined on 01.05.1988, 01.04.1986, 01.07.1987, 02,05,1988, 27.02.1991 and 01.04.1990, and retired on 31.12.2019, 31.01.2019, 30.09.2020, 31.03.2019, 28.02.2019 and 31.12.2019, respectively.

¶29

Mr. Bhanu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners is fully covered in view of the judgment rendered in the case of 'Mariyam Tirkey Vs. State of Jkarkhand' [WPS No.506/2013 and analogous cases].

¶30

Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that it appears from paragraph nos.9 to 14, that the amount in question has already been sanctioned.

¶31

In view of the above facts and considering the paragraph nos.9 to 14 of the writ petition whereby it transpires that the amount in question has already been sanctioned, the writ petition is being disposed of directing the respondent no.4 to release the sanctioned amount in favour of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of recepit/production of a copy of this order.

¶32

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

¶33

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)

¶34

SI/,

Daya Nand Poddar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Nand Poddar v. State of Jharkhand

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

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

Smt Shiv Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Rai Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd.