Disposed

Arun Kumar Rai v. Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd.

Jharkhand HC12 Mar 2021WPC/675/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking payment of GPF, interest on delayed pension, and gratuity, the High Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent no.2. If favorable, beneficiaries must be released within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent no.2 to be considered within eight weeks, with payment of benefits within six weeks if favor

Arun Kumar Rai Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikash… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

---

¶4

W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2021

¶5

----

¶6

Arun Kumar Rai, aged about 61 years, son of late Mala Rai, resident of PTPS, PO and PS-Patratu, District-Ramgarh

¶7

….. Petitioner

¶8

-- Versus –

¶9

1.Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd., Engineering Bhawan, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶10

2.2.General Manager -cum- Chief Engineer, Electricity Area, Hazaribagh, PO and PS -Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh

¶11

3.Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electricity Sub Circle, Ramgarh, PO and PS Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh

¶12

4.Electrical Executive Engineer, Electricity Supply Sub Division, PO-Kuju, PS-Mandu, District-Ramgarh …... Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For Resp.-JUVNL :- Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate

¶17

¶18

3 /12.03.2021 Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶19

and Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent JUVNL.

¶20

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.

¶21

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to pay the amount of GPF as well as interest on delayed payment of pension and Gratuity for the period from 01.02.2019 to 30.06.2020.

¶22

Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 15.12.1977 the petitioner was initially appointed as Unskilled

¶23

¶24

Khalasi in the Bihar State Electricity Board and pursuant thereto the petitioner worked under the Assistant Engineer and Electrical Executive engineer, Electricity Supply Division, Kuju and the petitioner retired from the post of Unskilled Khalasi from Electricity Sub Division Kuju on 31.01.2019. He submits that the retiral benefits have been paid except the GPF and interest as prayed in the writ petition for which the petitioner has also filed a representation before the respondent no.2.

¶25

Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent JUVNL fairly submits that the representation of the petitioner is pending and the writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.4 who will consider the same.

¶26

The writ petition is being disposed of directing the petitioner to file a fresh representaton before the respondent no.2 who will consider the case of the petitioner in view of the averments made in such representation within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of such representation.

¶27

If the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the benefit of the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner within six weeks further thereafter.

¶28

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition [W.P.(S) No.675 of 2021] stands disposed of.

¶29

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)

¶30

SI/,

Arun Kumar Rai v. Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Rai v. Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd.

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

Smt Shiv Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Daya Nand Poddar Vs State of Jharkhand