Urmila Devi Vs Rural Works Department — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Urmila Devi Vs Rural Works Department — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents-State of Jharkhand to pass a reasoned order on the petitioner's entitlement to ACP benefits; if the order is favourable, the benefits as prayed for are to be extended and pension/family pension revised with all consequential benefits; any adverse order is to be communicated within four weeks thereafter.

Issue for consideration

Whether the substituted petitioner (widow of the deceased original petitioner, who superannuated in 2013) is entitled to ACP benefits, the difference of salary, and revision of retiral benefits/pension/family pension accordingly, notwithstanding the State of Jharkhand's plea of want of documents. +1 more

Court's answer

The respondents-State of Jharkhand are directed to pass a reasoned order regarding the petitioner's entitlement to ACP benefits.

Ratio / Principle

If an order is passed in favour of the petitioner, the benefits as prayed for shall be extended and pension/family pension shall be revised accordingly with all consequential benefits.

Key takeaways

If any adverse order is passed, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law / ACP (Assured Career Progression) — Original petitioner (Ashok Kumar Singh) superannuated in 2013 and died in 2016; his widow (Urmila Devi) substituted as petitioner — ACP benefits, difference of salary and revision of retiral benefits/pension not paid — State of Jharkhand pleaded inability to pass orders for want of documents (educational certificates and confirmation order, per Annexure-3) despite letters written to the State of Bihar — State of Bihar submitted that upon bifurcation the employee stood allotted to the Jharkhand cadre in 2001 itself, that nothing was pending or lying with Bihar, and that the entire service records were in Jharkhand's possession — Held: writ petition disposed of; respondents-State of Jharkhand directed to pass a reasoned order on the petitioner's entitlement to ACP benefits; if favourable, benefits as prayed for to be extended and pension/family pension revised with all consequential benefits; any adverse order to be communicated within four weeks thereafter.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 2222 of 2014

Urmila Devi

… Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand, FFP Building, District-Ranchi

3.The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, FFP Building, District-Ranchi

4.The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, District-Patna 5.The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, District-Patna … Respondents

---------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA-III For the State of Bihar : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate -----------

18/ 08.01.2024 Heard the parties.

2. Since the original petitioner Ashok Kumar Singh has retired in the year 2013 and subsequently died in 2016, his widow has been substituted in his place.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the original petitioner superannuated in the 2013, yet the ACP benefits and the difference of salary has not been paid to him and the retiral benefits have also not been revised considering the ACP benefits. It is a case of the respondentsState of Jharkhand that in want of documents no orders could be passed. It has been brought to the notice by way of Annexure-3 of the writ petition that in want of educational certificates and the confirmation order the order regarding ACP was not passed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has argued that letters have been written to the State of Bihar and in want of any reply and documents, no order could be passed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar very fairly submits that after bifurcation of State the original petitioner has already been allotted to Jharkhand cadre in 2001 itself. Nothing is pending nor any documents are lying with the State of Bihar. It is only State of Jharkhand who is in possession of entire service records after bifurcation and as such they are free

-2-

to pass any orders. The State of Bihar has no role to play.

6. I hereby, direct the respondents-State of Jharkhand to pass a reasoned order regarding entitlement of the petitioner for ACP benefits. Needless to say, if an order is passed in favour of the petitioner, the benefits as prayed for shall be extended to the petitioners and pension/ family pension be revised accordingly with all consequential benefits. If any adverse order is passed the same shall also be communicated within a period of four weeks thereafter.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Rohit/-