Disposed

Bhatu Ram v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC22 Feb 2022WPC/3264/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought pension arrears and other retirement benefits. The Court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to file a detailed representation before respondent 4 for rational consideration and payment of any due amount.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file detailed representation before respondent 4 within two months to claim entitlement; respondent to frame issue and pass reasoned order.

Bhatu Ram Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 3264 of 2011

¶3

Guhiram Parmanik, son of late Gopi Parmanik, resident of village – Baliapur, Dangapara, P.O. and P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad (Struck off vide order dated 02.02.2022)

¶4

Bhatu Ram, son of late Khedan Ram, resident of village – Khariodih, P.O. Makatpur, P.S. Jainagar, District – Kodarma

¶5

… … Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶9

Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad, Near Rajendra Market, Bank More, P.O. , P.S. and District Dhanbad – through its Chief Executive Officer

¶10

The Chief Executive Officer, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Near Rajendra Market, Bank More, P.O. P.S. and District Dhanbad

¶11

The Executive Officer, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Sindri Anchal, Sindri, P.O. and P.S. Sindri, District Dhanbad.

¶12

… … Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶15

--For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the Resp. Nos.3 to 5 : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mr. Achyut Keshav, Advocate

¶16

Through Video Conferencing

¶17

¶18

21 /22.02.2022 This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶19

“For a direction upon the respondents to pay the petitioner, current regular pension as well as arrears of pension from the date of their retirement i.e. on 31.05.2007 as Mazdoor under Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Sindri Anchal, Dhanbad under the respondents under the provisions of Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1987 as adopted by the Government of Jharkhand under Notification of Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand Notification No.3679 dated 17.12.2008 and also the payment of leave encashment of 300 days minus the amount already paid as per the Government Circular dated 12.05.2005 and also the benefit of A.C.P., benefit of 5^th and 6^th pay revision to the petitioner, which has been already held up by the respondents and the respondents may also be directed to pay the aforesaid due amount of retiral benefit with 5% per annum as per the Pension Rules from the ate of retirement on 31.05.2007 till the date of actual payment.”

¶20

2. The records of the case shows that originally the writ petition

¶21

was filed by two petitioners, but the name of petitioner no.1 was

¶22

¶23

struck off vide order dated 2.2.22 and accordingly, the present writ petition survives only in connection with the petitioner no.2 namely Bhatu Ram.

¶24

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has referred to the counter-affidavit and submitted that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court after his retirement on 31.05.2007 by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S). No.1518 of 2008. He has submitted that in compliance of the order dated 22.04.2009 passed in the writ petition

¶25

, the representation of the petitioner was duly considered and the entire payable amount to the tune of Rs.5,29,025/- has already been released to the petitioner and consequently the Contempt Case (Civil) No.664 of 2009 was dropped. He has further submitted that the petitioner has also been paid earned leave to the maximum possible period of 240 days and the petitioner is not entitled to earned leave of 300 days as per the existing provision. The learned counsel has also submitted that the counter-affidavit also reflects that the petitioner is not entitled to uniform allowance, sixth pay revision, ACP and other claims.

¶26

4. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled not only for uniform allowance but also 6th pay revision and other benefits which is sought to be denied only by filing a counter-affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even pension has not been provided to the petitioner.

¶27

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that the surviving grievance of the petitioner can be taken care of by the respondent no.4 if the petitioner files a detailed representation annexing therewith the supporting documents / orders / judgements in support of his claim.

¶28

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstance of this case, it appears from the counter-affidavit that some amount has been paid to the petitioner pursuant to order passed in W.P.(S). No.1518 of 2008, but the petitioner is not satisfied and there are certain surviving grievances of the petitioner including that of payment of pension. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation with supporting documents /

¶29

¶30

judgments / orders before the respondent no.4 within a period of two months from today.

¶31

7. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent no.4 shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within a period of three months thereafter. If any amount is found payable to the petitioner, the same should be paid to the petitioner within a further period of two months from the date of the reasoned order. The reasoned order should also be communicated to the petitioner at his address through speed post which may be provided by the petitioner in his representation.

¶32

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition is hereby disposed of.

¶33

9. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the correctness of the submissions made by the rival parties in connection with the surviving claim of the petitioner.

¶34

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

¶35

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶36

Saurav

Bhatu Ram v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhatu Ram v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Shyam Nandan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Range Forest Officers Association through Its General Secretary Anil Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Somay Baskey Vs State of Jharkhand

Atwa Gope Alias Eto Gope Vs Collectariate

Ram Mohan Mehta Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Md Sallauddin Saba And Ors. Vs Health