Disposed

Hari Shanker Prasad v. Mineral Area Development Autho

Jharkhand HC4 Mar 2022WPC/570/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired MADA employee aggrieved by reduction in pay-scale and post-retirement benefits despite laches, sought direction to form a High Level Committee. The Court ignored documentary evidence of pecuniary loss and exercised discretion to direct the respondent to finalize the matter upon receipt of the Committee's report.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent MADA to take a final decision in the matter after a report by the High Level Committee is submitted.

Hari Shanker Prasad Vs Mineral Area… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No.570 of 2011

¶3

¶4

Hari Shanker Prasad, s/o late Munnu Ram, r/o Azad Nagar, POBhuli, A-Block, PS-Bankmore, District-Dhanbad ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mineral Area Development Authority, through its Managing Director, Luby Circular Road, Hirapur, PO & PS-Dhanbad, DistrictDhanbad.

¶7

Chairman, Mineral Area Development Authority, Luby Circular Road, Hirapur, PO & PS-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad.

¶8

Managing Director, Mineral Area Development Authority, Luby Circular Road, Hirapur, PO & PS-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad. 4. Accounts Officer, Mineral Area Development Authority, Luby Circular Road, Hirapur, PO & PS-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad.

¶9

... Respondents (Through V.C)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. M. K. Roy, Advocate For the Respondent-MADA : Mr. Mahavir Sinha, Advocate

¶12

¶13

Order No.10/Dated: 4th March 2022

¶14

This is an assigned matter by virtue of order dated 26^th August 2014 passed on the administrative side by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand.

¶15

2. The petitioner who superannuated from service w.e.f 30^th April 2004 is aggrieved by the order contained in Memo No.94 dated 25^th May 2004.

¶16

3. By the said order, the pay-scale of the petitioner fixed as per the recommendation of 6^th Pay Revision has been reduced to a lower scale of pay of Rs.5,500-9,000/-.

¶17

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, it would suffice to indicate that the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No.3735 of 2004 which was dismissed in default. In the present proceeding the petitioner seeks to place reliance on the stand taken by MADA in the proceeding of W.P.(S) No.3735 of 2004. Mr. M. K. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as per the knowledge of the petitioner till date no meeting of the High Level Committee has taken place.

¶18

2 W.P.(S) No.570 of 2011

¶19

5. It is not in dispute that after retirement of the petitioner his pay-scale was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.6,500-10,500/which according to MADA was reduced but matter was under consideration before the High Level Committee.

¶20

6. The petitioner has superannuated from service and there is no grievance as regards payment of post retiral benefits accruing to him on his superannuation from service except that his pay-scale has been reduced to lower scale of pay. The petitioner has made a statement in the writ petition that on account of reduction of scale of pay which is reflected in Annexure-7 an amount of Rs.42,000/- has been deducted from his retiral benefits but there is no supporting document produced by the petitioner and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner. Though there has been laches and delay on the part of the petitioner to prosecute W.P.(S) No.3735 of 2004 and the explanation offered by the petitioner for filing the present writ petition so many years after dismissal of W.P.(S) No. 3735 of 2004 in default is not satisfactory, still, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the respondent-MADA to take a final decision in the matter after a report by the High Level Committee is submitted, if already not submitted.

¶21

7. With the aforesaid observation W.P.(S) No.570 of 2011 is disposed of.

¶22

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶23

Amit/

Hari Shanker Prasad v. Mineral Area Development Autho

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Shanker Prasad v. Mineral Area Development Autho

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

Banti Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Rohit Raman Vs Union of India through CBI

Vishnu Kumar Bansal and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand through Rajbala Verma Chief Secretary and Ors.

Neha Kumari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Nagendra Kumar Sharma Alias Narendra Kumar Alias Banti Sharma And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand