Allowed

Uttam Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand through the Director Agriculture Deptt of Agriculture

Jharkhand HC9 Mar 2022WPC/916/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand directed the State to pay admitted dues of Rs. 2,97,860 and Rs. 1,05,900 along with statutory interest to two civil society organizations for seed distribution in 2012-13, in the absence of any explanation for the delay spanning over a decade.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State of Jharkhand to pay the admitted dues of Rs. 2,97,860/ and Rs. 1,05,900/- along with statutory interest as per the prevailing rate of nationalized banks.

Uttam Kumar Das Vs State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P. (C) No. 916 of 2020

¶2

…..... Uttam Kumar Das & Another …. ..... Petitioners Versus State of Jharkhand & Others …. ..... Respondents

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :- Video Conferencing)

¶4

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, Advocate. For the Respondents/State: Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I.

¶5

05/09.03.2022.

¶6

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal and learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal has submitted that petitioners namely, Uttam Kumar Das and Rajesh Kumar Das have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to pay the admitted dues of Rs. 2,97,860/- and Rs. 1,05,900/- alongwith interest, which were against the distribution of seeds.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are President of Anpurna SHG and Priya Foundation, which are Civil Society Organization, who have been provided the work of distribution of seeds for the year 2012-13 under Seeds Exchange and Distribution Scheme. The petitioners have supplied the seeds and for the bill raised by the petitioners, a memorandum had been prepared by the respondents for payment of arrears due to the petitioners vide cover letter no. 576 dated 20.11.2014, which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in the counter-affidavit dated 23.10.2020, duly sworn by Rajiv Kumar Mishra, son of Sri C.R. Mishra, the District Agriculture Officer, Bokaro, the aforesaid fact has been admitted in Para-5 of the counter affidavit, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

¶10

“5. That it is stated that the petitioners are the President of Annapurna SHG and Priya Foundation as Civil Society Organization, has been provided the work of distribution of

¶11

-2-

¶12

seeds for the year 2012-13 under seeds exchange and distribution scheme and accordingly the bill of consideration amount of Rs. 2,97,860/- and Rs. 1,05,900/has been submitted by the petitioners and also memorandum has been prepared by the Respondent No. 3 for payment of arrears due to the petitioners vide Memo No. 576 dated 20.11.2014 and thereafter time to time, but same to be not paid in absence of the allotment under O.S.P. from the Govt. till now and under such facts and circumstances, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law, and liable to be dismissed.”

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that it is admitted dues of the year 2012-13, which has not been paid to the petitioners till date, though much time not less than 10 years have already been elapsed and on the ground of absence of allotment of fund the same has not been paid to the petitioners.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners has thus submitted that since it is an admitted dues, as such payment shall be made by the respondents.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I has submitted that dues amount shall be paid as the same has been admitted by the respondent no. 3 in the counter-affidavit.

¶16

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into facts and circumstances of the case, since it is an admitted dues and no explanation has been given by respondents in the counter affidavit that why the payment has not been made since 2012 till date, forcing the petitioners to come before this Court, as such, this Court, by exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directs the State of Jharkhand to pay the dues amount alongwith statutory interest as per prevailing rate of interest of nationalized bank.

¶17

This Court is of the opinion that no steps has been taken or initiated by the concerned authorities till date for the payment of dues, which apparently shows the high-handedness of the concerned authorities / officers towards the common man or citizen.

¶18

-3-

¶19

The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative, Government of Jharkhand shall seek explain from the concerned officers as to why their salary should not be withheld as the admitted dues of the petitioners of the year 2012 has not been paid till date, which shows that officers lack interest with the work of Department.

¶20

So far the then District Agriculture Officer, Bokaro namely, Rajiv Kumar Mishra, son of Shri C.R. Mishra, who has sworn such affidavit is concerned, his salary is withheld till the payment is made to the petitioners. Interest part paid by the State shall be recovered from the erring officer(s) within a period of three months in accordance with law and to that effect, a report with regard to the compliance shall be given to this Court.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶22

Let a copy of order be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative, Government of Jharkhand as well as the then District Agriculture Officer, Bokaro namely, Rajiv Kumar Mishra, son of Shri C.R. Mishra through 'FAX'.

¶23

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶24

Sunil/-

Uttam Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand through the Director Agriculture Deptt of Agriculture

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand through the Director Agriculture Deptt of Agriculture

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

Tata Steel Limited Vs the Concerned Workman through Their Legal Heirs

Birendra Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

M/S Lakeshwari Builders Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shrawan Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Birendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Fuleshwari Devi And Ors. Vs Commissioner,South Chotanagpur