Allowed

Suresh Prasad Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Water Resources Deptt

Jharkhand HC13 Jul 2023LPA/225/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the intra-court appeal against the learned Single Judge's order remitting a pension claim to the authorities. The High Court held that when pleadings are complete, it is erroneous to relegate a litigant to the authorities and set aside the order, remanding the matter for disposal on merit.

What did the court decide?

Intra-court appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Single Judge for disposal on merits.

Suresh Prasad Sharma Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

L.P.A. No. 225 of 2023

¶3

Suresh Prasad Sharma ... ... Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Water Resources Department, Ranchi

¶6

The Executive Engineer, Waterways Division, Garhwa

¶7

… … ... Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶10

--------For the Appellant: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate Ms. Adamya Kerketta, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Darshana Poddar Mishra, A.A.G.-I ---------

¶11

03/Dated: 13.07.2023

¶12

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The appellant being the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 2742 of 2021, has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 27.03.2023.

¶15

The petitioner prayed before the learned Single Judge for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the entire pensionery benefits including pension, gratuity, G.P.F. and other admissible retiral dues. Further prayer had been made to fix and pay all pensionary benefits after granting of the third A.C.P. to the petitioner and accordingly, the difference of salary for the relevant period. He has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the dues admissible to him from the date of such admissibility till date of the actual payment.

¶16

The application was entertained by the Court. Notices were issued and pleadings were exchanged. After exchanging the pleadings, the learned Single Judge took up the matter for final disposal and since the counter affidavit was bereft of any cogent reasons denying the petitioner fixation of final pension as well as

¶17

¶18

payment of final gratuity, the writ application was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before respondent no. 2, giving details of his claims along with supporting documents, if any within a period of three weeks. The learned Single Judge further directed that in case such representation is preferred respondent no. 3 shall consider the same and dispose it of by passing speaking and reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of the order impugned by specifically taking into consideration the observations made by the Court in preceding paragraphs of the order impugned.

¶19

In our considered opinion, the very approach adopted by the learned Single Judge is erroneous in the sense that when the pleadings are complete and the matter is ready and ripe for final adjudication, it is not be expedient in the interest of justice to relegate the petitioner, a litigant who is making grievances against the authorities, to the authorities. Court exists for deciding the litigation and it is not justified to keep the matter pending by not giving a decisive opinion on the application filed by the petitioner, especially when the pleadings are complete.

¶20

In that view of the matter, we, hereby, allow the intra-court appeal and set aside the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2742 of 2021 and remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration and disposal of the writ application on merit. The matter shall be heard and decided by the appropriate assigned Bench.

¶21

There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶22

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶23

Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules.

¶24

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶25

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶26

APK/VK

Suresh Prasad Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Water Resources Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Prasad Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Water Resources Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naru Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhaskar Nandan and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiv Kishor Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs Health

Dr Raghunath Prasad Singh Vs Health