Disposed

Uma Chakravarty v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Apr 2024WPC/1136/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired government employee, sought arrears of salary, pension, gratuity and ACP/MACP benefits; her claim was rejected by an order based on a committee report without a prior hearing. The Court set aside the order solely for violation of natural justice and directed the Civil Surgeon to pass a fresh reasoned order after hearing and record inspection, without deciding merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Uma Chakravarty Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 1136 of 2023

¶3

Uma Chakravarty, aged about 65 years, Daughter of Surendra Kumar Chakravarty, Resident of D/o Surendra Kumar Chakravarty, Khunti, Banasandi, P.O. Khunti, P.S. Khunti, Distt. Khunti, Jharkhand

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand

¶7

Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶8

Joint Registrar, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶9

Director-in-Chief, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶10

Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer, Chatra, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, Jharkhand … … Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate Mr. Bhanu Kumar No. 1, Advocate Ms. Ayushi, Advocate Ms. Shreya Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, Adv. ---

¶12

08/2^nd April 2024

¶13

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶14

2. Initially the writ petition was filed on 27.02.2023, wherein following

¶15

prayer was made: -

¶16

“(a) for issuance of a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to pay the arrears of salary from 01.03.2012 to 30.06.2015 and also grant pension and Gratuity to the petitioner AND;

¶17

(b) for issuance of a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondents after giving arrear of salary, pension and gratuity also grant 1st ACP, 2^nd ACP and 3rd MACP AND;

¶18

(C) for issuance of a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondents forthwith to release the entire amount with Penal Interest due to delay and latches on the part of Respondents.”

¶19

3. Pursuant to the order dated 13.09.2023, an amended writ petition has been filed for the following additional reliefs: -

¶20

“d) For issuance of writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 25.07.2023 as contained in annexure 5 to this affidavit in violation of natural justice and not considering annexure 1, 2, 3 & 6 AND;

¶21

e) For issuance of writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or writ in the nature of mandamus for action against the respondent to be illegal void and without jurisdiction as the impugned order as issued prior to issuance of show cause and letter of director in chief has not been taken into consideration AND; f) Petitioner further prays for operation of annexure 5 may be stayed during the pendency of writ application.

¶22

AND/OR

¶23

Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.”

¶24

4. On 19.04.2023, a submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admissible amount of the petitioner has not been paid to her although she has superannuated on 31.10.2017 and that the reason for nonpayment was unknown to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents prayed for four weeks’ time to file a counter-affidavit. The respondents was granted time till 26.06.2023 to file the counter-affidavit, but in the meantime, admissible amount was directed to be remitted to the petitioner in her bank account and it was observed that in case admissible amount is not remitted, the reasons be also mentioned in the counter-affidavit.

¶25

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 19.04.2023, a Committee was constituted and on the basis of the Committee report, an order contained in Memo No. 1242 dated 25.07.2023 was passed wherein the claim of the petitioner has been declined. The learned counsel submits that the report of the Committee is ex-parte and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner rather vide Memo No. 364 dated 26.07.2023, a copy of the said report was forwarded to the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to submit explanation within a period of 24 hours after the decision . He submits that basically the respondents have sought to give a post decisional hearing in the matter. The learned counsel submits that the amended writ petition has been filed challenging the decision contained in Memo No. 1242 dated 25.07.2023.

¶26

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the report of the Committee is primarily a deliberation of the members of the Committee and before taking a final call in the matter, a show

¶27

¶28

cause was issued to the petitioner on 26.07.2023. He submits that if the petitioner would have responded to the show cause and would have pointed out any material in her favour, the decision could have been taken accordingly. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner may still respond to the show cause dated 26.07.2023 and upon such reply appropriate decision will be taken.

¶29

7. The learned counsel submits that the impugned decision contained in Memo No. 1242 dated 25.07.2023 has been passed by the Civil Surgeon on the basis of the Committee report.

¶30

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that initially when the writ petition was filed seeking mandamus and it was the case of the petitioner that admissible amount was not paid to the petitioner. Consequently, a direction was issued on 19.04.2023 to pay the admissible amount and to cite the reason for non-payment of any portion of the amount.

¶31

9. It appears that the respondents constituted a Committee to consider the grievance of the petitioner and a report was also prepared but the Civil Surgeon passed the impugned decision contained in Memo dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure-5) against the petitioner without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the show cause was issued to the petitioner vide memo dated 26.07.2023 i.e. one day after the impugned decision dated 25.07.2023.

¶32

10. This Court is of the considered view that such a course of action is not permissible under law unless there are compelling reasons and there is no such justification in this case to grant post decisional hearing to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the impugned decision dated 25.07.2023 is hereby set-aside only on account of violation of principles of natural justice. 12. The civil surgeon-cum-Medical Officer (respondent No. 5) is directed to pass a fresh and a reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled to inspect the records of the internal committee on the basis of which the aforesaid decision dated 25.07.2023 has been passed and it will be open to the petitioner to dispute any fact which has been mentioned in the aforesaid decision dated 25.07.2023.

¶33

13. For the inspection of the records of the internal committee, the petitioner shall approach the respondent No. 5 on 29.04.2024 at 11:00 a.m.

¶34

¶35

14. After inspection, the petitioner shall file a show cause reply to the enquiry report by 06.05.2024 and thereafter the respondent No. 5 shall pass a fresh reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by 31.05.2024. The reasoned order be also communicated to the petitioner through post.

¶36

15. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶37

16. The impugned order has been set-aside only on account of violation of principles of natural justice and this Court has not gone into the merits or otherwise with regard to the claim of either party.

¶38

17. It is for the respondent No. 5 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law taking into consideration the applicable rules/circular/enquiry report etc.

¶39

18. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶40

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶41

Mukul

¶42

Uma Chakravarty v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Uma Chakravarty v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Singh Alias Ranjan Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mustakim Mian Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dayal Pandit Vs Rinki Devi

Rajesh Singh Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Managing Director

Raghuraj Prasad Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Deptt of Home Jail and Disaster Management

Gita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand