Allowed

Sunita Verma v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Apr 2022WPC/794/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the State's order declaring a tenure as unauthorised absence due to lack of hearing and notice. The Court directed the State to regularise the period, sanction medical leave, treat subsequent time as on duty, and reconsider post-retiral benefits and ACP for the petitioner's deceased husband within three months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed of impugned order dated 2nd December 2005; Direction to regularise period of absence and reconsider post-retiral benefits and ACP.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 794 of 2011

¶4

Sunita Verma, w/o late Pawan Kr. Verma

¶5

Rakesh Kumar Verma, s/o late Pawan Kr. Verma,

¶6

Both r/o Trivenipuram, PO-Booty, PS-Bariatu, District-Ranchi

¶7

… Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶10

The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Purulia Road, Ranchi

¶11

The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lohardaga Circle, PO&PS& District-Lohardaga

¶12

The District Co-operative Officer, Ranchi

… Respondents

(Through V.C)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶17

For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, SC-I -------

¶18

Order No. 21/Dated: 8th April 2022

¶19

Three-fold prayers are made in this writ petition viz. (i) quashing of the order dated 2^nd December 2005 contained in Memo No.1764 by which the period between 14^th October 1990 to 24^th May 1993 has been treated as unauthorised absence from duty and consequently break in service (ii) a direction to the respondents to regularise the aforesaid period between 14^th October 1990 to 24^th May 1993 and (iii) grant of the benefits of financial upgradation under ACP.

¶20

The proceedings in this writ petition would reveal that several affidavits came to be filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand taking same and the similar stand at every stage. During pendency of the writ petition the government employee passed away and in his place his wife and son have been substituted.

¶21

An affidavit by the Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand has been filed in compliance of the order dated 11^th February 2022 passed by this Court. It is stated that all admissible post-retiral dues payable to Pawan Kumar Verma

¶22

2 WP(S) No. 794 of 2011

¶23

were paid to him and after his death his wife is receiving family pension. Through a tabular chart, the affidavit filed by the Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand outlines that an amount of Rs.91,370/- on account of Group Insurance, Rs.4,29,343/- as GPF, Rs.2,30,430/- as leave encashment and Rs.3,80,210/as 100% gratuity amount were paid by 5^th December 2009. It is further stated that pension papers of Pawan Kumar Verma were transmitted to the office of Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi through letter no.203 dated 27^th October 2010 and pension order for payment of pension to him w.e.f. 1^st August 2007 was issued by an order dated 16^th December 2010.

¶24

Briefly stated, Pawan Kumar Verma who joined Co-operative Department on the post of Co-operative Supervisor in the year 1971 superannuated from service w.e.f. 31^st July 2007 while working as Co-operative Extension Officer at Lohardaga in the State of Jharkhand. When he was discharging duties of Co-operative Extension Officer at Dalsingh Sarai he was transferred to Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi by an order contained in Memo dated 6^th June 1990. However, on account of his ill health he could not tender his joining and proceeded on medical leave. According to the employee, he resumed his duties and produced medical certificates.

¶25

Pawan Kumar Verma, the employee, brought on record an enquiry report dated 5^th October 2004 by Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lohardaga to demonstrate the true facts as regards the period between 14^th October 1990 to 24^th May 1993. Thereafter vide letter dated 11^th October 2004, the District Co-operative Officer, Ranchi made a recommendation to the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand for an order regularising the period between 14^th October 1990 to 24^th May 1993. And, another letter dated 24^th December 2007 followed the previous letter making a recommendation to the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand for an appropriate order in the matter.

¶26

It appears that even after superannuation of Pawan Kumar Verma from service no decision was taken by the department as regards the aforesaid period between 4^th October 1990 to 24^th May 1993 and therefore

¶27

3 WP(S) No. 794 of 2011

¶28

the District Co-operative Officer-cum-Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies again by letter dated 19^th April 2008 made a request to the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand for taking appropriate decision in the matter. Finally by an order dated 2^nd December 2005 vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand took a decision in response to letter no.521 dated 11^th October 2004 by the District Co-operative Officer, Ranchi declining to regularise the period between 14^th October 1990 to 24^th May 1993.

¶29

A glance at the order contained in letter no.1764 dated 2^nd December 2005 would at once indicate that the said order has been passed not on any representation of the employee. The said order does not record the stand taken by the government employee before the District Co-operative Officer, Ranchi, if at all a representation was made before him. The order dated 2^nd December 2005 records that Pawan Kumar Verma was relieved on 16^th October 1990 for tendering joining at South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in compliance of the order dated 6^th June 1990 but he disobeyed the said order and proceeded on leave on 14^th October 1990. Paragraph no.2 of the order dated 2^nd December 2005 further records that “after availing leave” Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma tendered his joining on 22^nd January 1991 on the post of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dalsingh Sarai which however was not accepted. The order dated 2^nd December 2005 further records in paragraph no.3 that Pawan Kumar Verma disobeyed the order dated 6^th March 1992 issued by Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Industrial) and did not tender joining at South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi rather he chose to join there on 26^th May 2003.

¶30

The allegations which appear from a reading of the order dated 2^nd December 2005 such as disobedience to the official order required issuance of a show-cause notice seeking response of the delinquent government employee. It is admitted at Bar and as this Court also finds from the records produced by the State of Jharkhand in the present proceeding that no notice was issued to Pawan Kumar Verma before he superannuated from service.

¶31

4 WP(S) No. 794 of 2011

¶32

All along the respondents continued to doubt genuineness of the report dated 5^th October 2004 vide Annexure-1 but they never took any step in the matter and asked for a report from the State of Bihar where Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma was posted at the relevant time. As this Court has noticed, the order dated 2^nd December 2005 records that Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma proceeded on leave from 14^th October 1990 and from such averment in the said order it must be accepted that leave from 14^th October 1990 was sanctioned to him and if that is so and particularly because he came back on 22^nd January 1991 and tendered his joining on the post of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dalsingh Sarai, the absence from duty cannot be held willful and intentional [refer, “Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India” (2012) 3 SCC 178 ] and while so the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand in the order dated 2^nd December 2005 could not have held that Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma was on unauthorised leave from 14^th October 1990. 10. As the Court observes, in the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents the absence of Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma till 21^st January 1991 was treated unauthorised. It is stated that no reason has been assigned by Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma for his absence from 22^nd January 1991 to 24^th May 1993. But it would appear from Annexure-3 to the rejoinder affidavit dated 28^th November 2013 that the specific stand taken by him was that he was assigned duties during the assembly elections and for that period he was paid allowances also. Now, without any verification as regards stand of Pawan Kumar Verma as recorded in Annexure-3 to the rejoinder affidavit dated 28^th November 2013 there was no occasion for the respondents to disbelieve the same, even if the report was prepared on his representation.

¶33

In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 and again on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3, a stand has been taken that Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma came to this Court in WP(S) No.6056 of 2008 and the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 25^th August 2010. A copy of the said order has been produced on record but what has not been stated in the aforesaid affidavits filed by the State of Jharkhand is the fact that on 8^th January 2010 a statement was made by the learned counsel for the respondents that all the retiral benefits were

¶34

5 WP(S) No. 794 of 2011

¶35

paid to Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma and the records for grant of benefits of ACP with recommendations were forwarded to the concerned department. These facts are now affirmed by the Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand in his affidavit dated 3^rd March 2022.

¶36

A glance at the order dated 8^th January 2010 passed in WP(S) No. 6056 of 2008 the records of which are attached with the present writ petition reveals that the respondent-State of Jharkhand made a statement in the Court that all the retiral benefits were already paid to Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma. On that day no one had appeared for the original writ petitioner and consequently the writ petition was dismissed in default. The further proceedings in WP(S) No.6056 of 2008 reveal that an application vide I.A. No.2566 of 2010 for challenging the orders dated 2^nd December 2005 and 10^th June 2010 was filed which was allowed vide order dated 14^th July 2010 but finally WP(S) No.6056 of 2008 was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 25^th August 2010.

¶37

This Court is not required to record in some detail the law on the subject that if a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not dismissed on merits the same shall not operate as a bar against the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. 14. This Court feels that the State as a litigant must demonstrate that it is a responsible litigant and its actions must reflect fair play in action. By suppressing material informations from the Court and, that too, by the State as a litigant the State itself violates its oath under the State's litigation policy and a time has come that there should be a mechanism in place for taking action against the persons responsible for filing incomplete and distorted affidavits in the Court. This Court is at pains to record that even on 19^th date of hearing of this writ petition the State continued with its unfair stand. This Court thinks that now nothing more is required to be recorded in a judicial proceeding and it is really for the authorities to ponder over the ways the cases are fought in the Courts.

¶38

For the reasons that – no notice was issued to Pawan Kumar Verma before he superannuated from service, no opportunity was afforded to him to put forth his defence, no enquiry was caused by the State of

¶39

6 WP(S) No. 794 of 2011

¶40

Jharkhand in the matter, no verification as to the facts recorded in Annexure-3 to the rejoinder affidavit dated 28^th November 2013 was done – the order dated 2^nd December 2005 contained in Memo No.1764 is quashed. 16. In the circumstances of the case, since no notice can be issued now to the government employee as he has passed away and this Court is inclined to accept the enquiry report dated 5^th October 2004, the concerned authority of the State of Jharkhand shall regularise the period between 14^th October 1990 to 21^st January 1991 in the following manner:

¶41

(i) sanction medical leave for the period between 14^th October 1990 to 21^st January 1991 and

¶42

(ii) the period between 22^nd January 1991 to 24^th May 1993 shall be treated as period on duty.

¶43

This Court is informed that the District Co-operative Officer, Lohardaga is the competent authority who shall initiate the files for fresh calculation of the post-retiral benefits and family pension payable to the widow of Pawan Kumar Verma. Let such an exercise be completed within a period of three months and records be transmitted to the office of Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi. As regards the claim for grant of ACP benefits, the same shall also be reconsidered consequent upon passing of this order. That exercise shall also be completed within a period of next three months.

¶44

WP(S) No.794 of 2011 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶45

Let a copy of this order be served upon the office of the learned

¶46

Advocate-General and the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand.

¶47

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶48

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 8^th April 2022 R.K./N.A.F.R.

Sunita Verma v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Verma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bihar State Financial Corporat Vs Recovery Officer Debt Recovery

Khublal Prajapati Vs Collectariate

Sanjay Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nagendra Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Pawan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyam Kumar Nonia Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.