Disposed

Mahendra Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC24 Mar 2022WPC/3512/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dispensed with a hearing and directed the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's pending representation regarding 3rd ACP/MACP benefits, 6th Pay Revision arrears, increments, and pension revision within specified timelines, requiring the petitioner to submit fresh documents first.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation; Respondent-3 to consider and pass reasoned order within six weeks; beneficiaries to be paid if entitled; rejection time-limited if not.

Mahendra Kumar Singh Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (S) No. 3512 of 2021

Mahendra Kumar Singh

… Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Deputy Inspector General of Police (Kolhan), Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum

¶9

Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum

¶10

Superintendent of Police, Chatra, Chatra

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

---------- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner : Mr. L.K. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV

¶13

¶14

06/ 24.03.2022 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to grant the benefits of 3rd ACP/MACP to the petitioner from the date he became eligible for the same. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to pay the last arrears of 6^th Pay Revision, two increments for the period, 2009 and 2010 and all other legal dues and also to pay the differences of arrears of salary after the revision of retiral benefits and to revise the pension with 18 % interest.

¶15

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the representation of the petitioner is pending before the respondents, but the respondents have neither shown any consideration nor any orders have been passed. Suffice, it would be if a direction be given to the respondents to dispose of the pending representations of the petitioner.

¶16

Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, learned counsel for the respondents very fairly submits that the respondents will pass a reasoned order on the pending representation of the petitioner and if the petitioner is found entitled for the said benefit, the same shall be extended to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶17

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, without going into the merits of this case, I hereby direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation annexing all the relevant documents on which he is relying on along with a copy of this order before the respondent No.3, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the

¶18

¶19

case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶20

Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled for the aforesaid benefits, the same shall be extended to him, within a further period of three weeks. If the case of petitioner is turned down for one or other reasons, same shall be communicated to him, within a further period of two weeks.

¶21

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed

¶22

of.

¶23

punit/-

Mahendra Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Jha And Ors. Vs Finance

Srikant Das Vs Education

Misbahul Hasan Vs Drinking Water And Sanitation

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Represented through Its Divisional Engineer Administration Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Dr Priyanka Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Butan Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand