Dismissed

Dinesh Prasad Singh v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization

Jharkhand HC9 Jun 2022WPC/1181/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged MACP up-gradation cancellation and recovery order via writ. Court dismissed petition due to efficacious alternative remedy available in CAT, directing petitioner to approach CAT within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Central Administrative Tribunal within three months.

Dinesh Prasad Singh Vs the Regional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 1181 of 2020

¶3

Dinesh Prasad Singh aged about 65 years S/o Late Arjun Prasad Singh, R/o Flat No. 608, Eklavya Tower, Deepatoli, P.O. Pundag, P.S. Pundag, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (CSD), Employees, Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 14, Bhikaji Cama Place, P.O. + P.S. Dist. New Delhi, 110066

¶6

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (Adm)/OIC, Regional Office, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Bhagirathi Complex, P.O. + P.S. Karamtoli, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶7

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Regional Office, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Bhagirathi Complex, P.O. + P.S. Karamtoli, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶8

The Assistant General Manager, Centralized Pension Processing Centre, State Bank of India, Administrative Office Building, 4^th Floor, J.C. Road, Patna, P.O. Patna University Campus, P.S. Patna City, Dist. Patna, Bihar … … Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate For the Respondent-SBI : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to Mr. Prashant Pallav, (A.S.G.I.) ---

¶12

7 /09.06.2022 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶13

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶14

“ For issuance of direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the office order no. 39 dated 3.5.19 (Annexure 2, page 21-22) by which direction has been issued by the respondent to cancel the up-gradation given to the petitioner on account of MACP and the said order has been passed after the superannuation of the petitioner as such order is absolutely illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

For issuance of direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the office order no. 30358 dated 07.11.19 (Annexure-4 page 25) by which order has been passed to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner.

¶16

For issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to recover any amount pending adjudication of the case and further direction upon the bank to refund the amount recovered from the account of the petitioner which has bee recovered illegally and without any authority .”

¶17

3. Today, when the case is taken up, learned counsel for the respondents have raised preliminary objection regarding the

¶18

¶19

maintainability of the writ petition. She submits that the Central Administrative Tribunal has the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the petition for the relief which has been prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in response has submitted that since the petitioner is a retired person and on account of hardship, the present writ petition has been filed. But he does not dispute the fact that otherwise the Central Administrative Tribunal has the necessary jurisdiction to consider the grievance of the petitioner.

¶21

5. Considering the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, this court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition on account of efficacious alternative remedy. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

6. However, the petitioner may approach Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law for redressal of his grievances within a period of three months from today.

¶23

7. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶24

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶25

Binit

Dinesh Prasad Singh v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Prasad Singh v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ginni Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Oleshwar Pandit Vs State of Jharkhand through Pr Secretary Dept of Personnel Administrative Reform and Raj Bhasha

Siblan Topno Vs State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Usha Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudhir Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Water Resources Division

Binod Kerketta Vs Union of India And Ors.