Disposed

Amresh Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Jun 2022WPC/2763/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought post-death service benefits (pension, gratuity, etc.) alleging his father died during service in 1980. The High Court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner's failure to produce any documentary proof of his father's employment, evidenced by the department's counter-affidavit confirming a different service record, and the petition's late filing after nearly four dec

What did the court decide?

Direction upon the respondents to release family pension, leave encashment, G.P.F., group insurance, and gratuity after the death of the petitioner's father was denied.

Amresh Prasad 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. 2763 of 2019

¶4

Amresh Prasad, aged about 37 years, S/o Late Jagdish Ram, R/o Harijan Mohalla, ward No. 9, P.O. & P.S. – Medninagar, District – Palamau, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. – Doranda, District – Ranchi.

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. + P.S. & Dist. Palamau.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, P.O. + P.S. & Dist. Garhwa.

¶10

The Civil Surgeon, Palamau, P.O. + P.S. & Dist. Palamau.

¶11

The Civil Surveon, Garhwa, P.O. + P.S. & Dist. Garhwa.

¶12

The Medical Officer, Palamau, P.O. + P.S. & Dist. Palamau.

¶13

The Medical Officer, Garhwa, P.O. + P.S. & Dist. Garhwa.

¶14

… … Respondents

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

07/06.06.2022

¶18

1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶19

2. Heard Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶20

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

¶21

“For direction upon the respondent to release the service benefits to the petitioner such as family pension, leave encashment, G.P.F., Group Insurance, Gratuity after death of the father of the petitioner since the father of the petitioner died during service on 24.07.1980.

¶22

And/Or

¶23

Petitioner further prays that direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for service on compensate ground in view of the Circular issued by Government dated 12.07.1987 and 17.05.1980 since his father died during service.

¶24

And/Or

¶25

Petitioner further prays for direction upon the respondents to disposed of the representation dated 14.02.2019 by

¶26

¶27

which the petitioner presented his grievance to the respondents.

¶28

And

¶29

Any other relief as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances the case.”

¶30

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument, has submitted that although the petitioner has prayed for compassionate appointment, but the father of the petitioner having died as back as on 24.07.1980, the petitioner is not pressing the relief with regard to the compassionate appointment. However, he submits that the petitioner is entitled for other benefits like family pension, leave encashment, G.P.F., group insurance, gratuity etc. after the death of his father. The learned counsel also submits that as per the writ petition, no post death benefit has paid to the petitioner, although a representation dated 14.02.2019 was filed by the petitioner for redressal of his grievances, which is still pending.

¶31

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case by the respondents indicating that after thorough search in the office of Civil Surgeon, Palamu, no documents of Jagadish Ram could be recovered. It has also been stated that the documents of one Jagdish Ram who had joined as peon on 26.12.1957 in Palamau Civil Surgeon Office were found, who died on 24.10.1982 and his wife was given pension. It has also been mentioned in the affidavit that there appears to be two death certificates of Jagdish Ram, one showing the date of death as 24.07.1978 issued on 06.06.2015 and another as 24.07.1980 issued on 29.11.2017. It has further been mentioned in paragraph – 8 of the counter-affidavit that Jagdish Ram died in the year 1978 dated 24.07.1978 and he took leave from 07.05.1970 to 11.05.1970 extended up to 17.05.1970 and after 17.05.1970, Jagdish Ram disappeared from service and did not turn up for service.

¶32

6. Considering the fact that as per the claim of the petitioner, the father of the petitioner had died on 24.07.1980, a specific query was put by this court to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether there is any document annexed with the writ petition showing that the father of the petitioner was ever employed by the respondents, the learned

¶33

¶34

counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that no such document has been annexed along with the writ petition.

¶35

7. This Court is of the considered view that from perusal of the counter-affidavit, the respondents are also not able to find out any document with regard to Jagdish Ram and it has also been stated that one Jagdish Ram died on 24.10.1982 and his wife was given pension. Since the petitioner has not produced any document to show that the father of the petitioner was ever working in the office of Civil Surgeon, Palamau and the petitioner has approached this Court after much delay by filing the writ petition in the year 2019 , this Court is not inclined to issue any mandamus as prayed for by the writ petitioner.

¶36

8. However, if the petitioner is able to lay hand on any document(s) showing that the father of the petitioner was ever employed with the respondent Civil Surgeon, Palamau, then he may approach the Civil Surgeon, Palamau with such document(s) who may look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order subject to availability and verification of the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner from the records available with the office of Civil Surgeon, Palamau.

¶37

9. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶38

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶39

Mukul

Amresh Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amresh Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Rahul Saraff Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhupendra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abha Kiran Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mina Kumari Sah Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand Prant Anaupcharik Shiksha Anudeshak Sangh Represented through Its President Umesh Mahtha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Dr Balmukund Singh Vs Human Resource Development