Dismissed

Shakila Bano v. the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC17 Jun 2022WPC/236/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition seeking arrears of salary, pension, and gratuity based on selection grades not claimed by the deceased husband during his service. The Court held that granting further relief was not inclined as the petitioner had not claimed the amounts earlier. (31 paragraphs)

What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the petition and is not inclined to grant any further relief.

Shakila Bano Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W. P. (S) No. 236 of 2020

¶4

Shakila Bano, aged about 68 years, widow of Late Md. Zahir, resident of Mohalla Garha Toli, Kantatoli, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi. … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶8

The Director, Agriculture Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Krishi Bhawan, Kanke Road, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla.

¶10

The Block Development Officer, Dumri, P.O. and P.S. Dumri, District Gumla.

¶11

The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. … … Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

¶14

05/17.06.2022

¶15

1. Heard Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶16

2. Heard Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶17

3. Heard Mr. Shivam Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6.

¶18

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

¶19

“for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions upon the respondents as to why the respondents may not be directed to pay the petitioner the amount of arrears of salary of the deceased of husband of 1^st and 2^nd selection grade w.e.f. 01.01.1979 and 14.01.1984 respectively and on that basis the payment of pension and gratuity, earned leave amount and group insurance amount for the period 03.08.1986 to 25.12.1997 with statutory interest.”

¶20

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed

¶21

the prayer to submit that the petitioner is not entitled any arrears of salary of the deceased husband of 1^st and 2^nd selection grade w.e.f. 01.01.1979 and 14.01.1984 and consequent revision of pension and

¶22

¶23

gratuity, earn leave etc. for the period from 03.08.1986 to 25.12.1997. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had moved this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2645/2006, wherein it was clearly recorded that the husband of the petitioner has worked as ‘Jan Sewak’ in the District Gumla. He was ordered to join on transfer on 01.08.1986 at Basia and was relieved from district Gumla to join at Basia on 28.08.1986. However, he did not report to Basia and went missing and subsequently, he expired on 25.12.1997.

¶24

6. The learned counsel also submits that considering the fact that the husband of the petitioner had continuously work for 26 years, the petitioner being the widow was found entitled for family pension as well as the gratuity which was to be calculated on the basis of last pay drawn by her husband on 02.08.1986. He submits that thereafter, the pension and gratuity has been calculated and given to the petitioner vide Memo No. 525 (ii) dated 18.07.2014 and now the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for further relief. The learned counsel submits that such claim on account of revision of pay and arrear of salary and consequent revision of pension of person who has expired as back as on 25.12.1997 is not maintainable and in view of the specific direction by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2645/2006, the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief.

¶25

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6 has submitted that the petitioner has received the amount in terms of earlier order dated 19.06.2012 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2645/2006. 8. At this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that admittedly the husband of the petitioner had worked for 26 years and therefore, he was entitled to 1^st and 2^nd selection grade w.e.f. 01.01.1979 and 14.01.1984, which was not given to the husband of the petitioner.

¶26

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and going through the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 2645/2006 dated 19.06.2012, it is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner did not join duty after 28.08.1986 and thereafter, he expired on 25.12.1997. This Court finds that during his life time, while he was in service till 28.08.1986 and even before his death till 25.12.1997, the husband of the petitioner

¶27

¶28

never claimed any amount on account of 1^st and 2^nd selection grade w.e.f. 01.01.1979 and 14.01.1984.

¶29

10. It further appears from the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 2645/2006 that it was also submitted in the writ proceedings that the husband of the petitioner was awarded selection grade vide order dated 15.03.1980 w.e.f. 01.01.1979. However, the writ Court while considering the claim of the petitioner held that in view of Rule 76 (b) of Jharkhand Service Code, the husband shall be deemed to have been dismissed from service and passed a specific order with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner of family pension and gratuity to be paid on the basis of last pay drawn by the husband of the petitioner on 02.08.1986 considering continuous 26 years of service.

¶30

11. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner is entitled to the family pension and gratuity in terms of aforesaid order passed in W.P. (S) No. 2645/2006 and for which necessary order has already been passed vide letter No. 525 (ii) dated 18.07.2014 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. But, so far as the further claim of the petitioner by way of present writ petition seeking direction upon the respondents to pay arrears of salary of the deceased of husband of 1^st and 2^nd selection grade w.e.f. 01.01.1979 and 14.01.1984 is concerned, this Court is not inclined to entertain any further relief to the petitioner over and above what has already been granted to the petitioner vide order dated 19.06.2012 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2645/2006. Otherwise also, the husband of the petitioner never claimed the said amount during the period of his service or during his lifetime. Accordingly, this court is not inclined to grant any further relief as prayed for by the writ petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶32

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶33

Mukul

Shakila Bano v. the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakila Bano v. the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

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

Mary Tuti Vs Ranchi University Represented through Its Registrar and Ors.

Ram Charitra Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mary Tuti Vs the Bank of India through Its Chairman and Ors.

Karan Jaisawal Alias Karan Rout Alias Karan Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Noori Khatoon Alias Nuri Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramjagi Singh Ramjangi Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Mary Tuti Vs Ranchi University Represented through Its Registrar and Ors.

Ram Charitra Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mary Tuti Vs the Bank of India through Its Chairman and Ors.

Karan Jaisawal Alias Karan Rout Alias Karan Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Noori Khatoon Alias Nuri Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramjagi Singh  Ramjangi Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ramjagi Singh Ramjangi Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.