Disposed

Jagdeo Prasad v. The Vice Chancellor Vinobha Bhave University And Ors.

Jharkhand HC17 Oct 2023WPC/914/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, who had superannuated, sought direction to treat his services as 'Demonstrator' and quash retirement notice. The court disposed of the petition granting liberty to file a representation. The Registrar was directed to process the claim and pay legally admissible dues within eight weeks. A pending interlocutory application was also disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Registrar directed to process claim if representation filed within 4 weeks; authorities to complete formalities and pay dues within 8 weeks.

Jagdeo Prasad Vs The Vice Chancellor… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

(Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P.(S) No.914 of 2017

Jagdeo Prasad

…. …. Petitioner

Versus

1. The Vice Chancellor, Vinobha Bhave University, Hazaribagh

¶8

2. The Registrar, Vinobha Bhave University, Hazaribagh

¶9

3. The Director, Higher and Technical Education and Skill Development (Directorate of Higher Education), Nepal House, Ranchi

¶10

4. The Principal, Markham College of Commerce, Barkagaon Road, Hazaribagh …. …. Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Shankar, Adv. For the Respondents : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.

¶15

¶16

13/Dated: 17^th October, 2023

¶17

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for following

¶18

reliefs:-

¶19

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to re-designate and treat the services of the petitioner as Demonstrator instead of Lab Incharge and other benefits.

¶20

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order No.VBU/Estt/8938/16 dated 11.11.2016 by which the respondents has given notice to the respondents that the petitioner is going to retire from the service.

¶21

(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 11.11.2016 till the petitioner attains the age of 65 years.

¶22

(iv) During the pendency of the writ application order dated 11.11.2016 may be kept in abeyance/stayed. “

¶23

2. During pendency of the present writ petition, one interlocutory application being I.A No.9308 of 2023 has been filed. Paragraph No.1 of the said interlocutory application reads as under:-

¶24

“1. That by way of the instant interlocutory application the petitioner alternatively prays for apart from other prayers in the writ application, that even if the respondents are considering the petitioner as Lab. Assistant then the legally admissible dues and retiral dues which is payable to the petitioner may be paid to him as the petitioner has already superannuated from service on 31.3.2017.

¶25

W.P.(S). No.214 of 2017

¶26

¶27

3. Thus, the petitioner has accepted the date of superannuation as 31.03.2017 and has prayed for payment of retiral dues and other service dues in accordance with law including benefits of ACP/MACP .

¶28

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has not opposed the prayer so far as the consideration of the retiral benefits as well as service dues are concerned, as per the law.

¶29

5. In view of the above confinement, the present writ petition is hereby, disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the respondent No.2 (i.e, the Registrar, Vinobha Bhave, University Hazaribagh).

¶30

6. If any such representation is filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, then the respondent No.2 is directed to process the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and pay all legally admissible dues within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

¶31

7. The concerned authorities are also directed to complete the formalities within the aforesaid period of eight weeks and to make the payment within two weeks thereafter.

¶32

8. In view of the above discussion and submission of the parties, the present writ petition is hereby, disposed of with the above observation and direction.

¶33

9. Pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

¶34

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶35

Raja/-

Jagdeo Prasad v. The Vice Chancellor Vinobha Bhave University And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdeo Prasad v. The Vice Chancellor Vinobha Bhave University 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

Sahdev Karmakar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Singo Hembram Vs Sri Prashant Kumar the Administrator Subernrekha Project

Dinesh Singh Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bijay Kumar Vs the Chief Executive Officer Indian Bank

Anil Bara Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sokha Majhi Alias Bharmu Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand