Disposed

Sandhya Shankar v. Social Welfare Women and Child Development Dept

Jharkhand HC15 Feb 2023WPC/261/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a writ petition seeking honorarium as Member of Child Welfare Committee. The Court directed the State to treat the petition as a representation and pass a reasoned order within specified timeframes.

What did the court decide?

Direction to treat writ petition as representation; respondents must pass reasoned order within eight weeks; benefits to be extended in three weeks if due.

Sandhya Shankar Vs Social Welfare Women and Child… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 261 of 2014 Sandhya Shankar …. …. Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand.

¶5

The Director, Department of Social Welfare (Women and Child Development), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶6

The District Programme Officer, Hazaribagh.

¶7

The District Social Welfare Officer, Hazaribagh.

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.

¶9

…. … Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V -----

¶14

3/ 15.02.2023 Heard the parties.

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to pay honorarium / sitting allowance from October 2010 to January, 2011 and 1.7.2011 till September, 2013, the period during which the petitioner has worked as Member of the Child Welfare Committee.

¶16

At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that suffice it would be if the present writ petition be treated as a representation of the petitioner and a direction be given to the respondents to pass a reasoned order, regarding payment of honorarium / sitting allowance, on the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within stipulated time.

¶17

Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not object to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and without entering into the merits of the case, let the present writ petition be treated as a representation of the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to approach the respondents with a copy of the writ petition along with representation and a copy of this order and with any other documents on which he is relying upon, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass a speaking order assigning valid and concrete reason for

¶19

¶20

consideration / non-consideration of the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

¶21

Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits for the period she worked, as prayed for in the writ petition, same be extended to her within a further period of three weeks in accordance with law. If the case of petitioner is turned down for one or other reasons, the same shall be communicated to him, within a further period of two weeks.

¶22

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶23

R.Kr.

Sandhya Shankar v. Social Welfare Women and Child Development Dept

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhya Shankar v. Social Welfare Women and Child Development Dept

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

Prabhat Ranjan Prasad Vs Drinking Water and Sanitation

Dilip Kumar Mahatha Vs Chief Secretory

Narayan Mahto Vs Agriculture and Sugar Cane Development

Sanatan Nayak and Anr. Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

Satwanti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Gendia Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.