Disposed

Arun Prasad Sahu v. Home Department And Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Feb 2023WPC/6349/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought MACP benefits denied despite prior recommendation. Court directed Respondent No. 2 to reconsider the case within three weeks of a fresh representation and dispose within six weeks, ensuring timely communication or payment thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 to reconsider petitioner's MACP case within three weeks of fresh representation and dispose within six weeks weeks.

Arun Prasad Sahu Vs Home Department And Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6349 of 2013

¶3

Arjun Prasad Sahu

¶4

…. …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶7

The Inspector General (Prisons), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶8

The Assistant Inspector General (Prisons), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶9

The Superintendent, Divisional Jail, Deoghar.

¶10

The Secretary, Jharkhand State Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Ranchi.

¶11

The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Ranchi.

¶12

…. … Respondents

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Shankar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate -----

¶16

9/ 08.02.2023 Heard the parties.

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to consider his case for grant of MACP benefits.

¶18

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Jailor on 30.7.1979 and in course of time, he was promoted to the post of Jailor on 24.12.1998. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner retired on 31.10.2015. It is specific case of the petitioner that though he passed the required departmental examination, he has not been given the benefits of MACP, that too, his case was already recommended by the Superintendent, Divisional Jail, Chaibasa for consideration of MACP benefits, but no heed was paid. The petitioner has also filed several representations, but the same were not considered till date.

¶19

Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for benefits of MACP as per the scheme. Though the case of the petitioner was already recommended, but nothing was done. Even representations were filed, but no consideration was shown and the petitioner retired in the year 2015. Learned counsel submits that as such, a direction be given to the respondents, particularly respondent no.2 to consider his case taking into

¶20

¶21

account the recommendation at Annexure-4 and to pass an order for payment of MACP benefits.

¶22

Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submits that if the petitioner files a fresh representation, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and if the petitioner is found entitled for the same, the benefits thereof shall be extended to him, within stipulated time.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Superintendent, Divisional Jail, Chaibas for grant of MACP, but no heed has been shown to the said recommendation. As such, I hereby direct the respondent no. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of MACP and when a fresh representation is filed preferably within a period of three weeks, the same shall be considered and disposed of, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶24

Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits, as prayed for in the writ petition, same be extended to him 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.

¶25

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

¶26

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)

¶27

R.Kr.

Arun Prasad Sahu v. Home Department And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Prasad Sahu v. Home Department And Ors.

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

Nahun Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shivdani Prasad Vs Human Resource Development

Ram Nandan Prasad Sinha Vs Industry Department

Samuel Dungdung Vs Police

Thakur Rajesh Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Suresh Ravidas Vs the Office of the Lokayukta Jharkhand through Its Deputy Secretary