Disposed

Suresh Prasad Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Water Resources Department

Jharkhand HC12 Sept 2024WPC/2742/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired Senior Accounts Clerk sought release of withheld pension and gratuity after the State claimed his service book was missing and an FIR was filed against him. The court held the State was custodian of service records and directed calculation of provisional pension on the basis of documents the petitioner was to produce.

What the court decided

AI extract

Suresh Prasad Sharma Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2742 of 2021

¶2

------

¶3

Suresh Prasad Sharma, aged about 70 years, S/o Late Shyam Narayan Singh, resident of Datiyana, P.O.-Datiyana & P.S.Vikram, District-Patna (Bihar) … … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus -

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Water Resources Department, having office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Town & District-Ranchi

¶6

The Executive Engineer, Waterways Division, Garhwa, P.O., P.S. and District-Garhwa ... … Respondents

¶7

¶8

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioner : M/s. Manoj Tandon, Neha Bhardwaj, Adamya Kerketta, Ankita, Advocates For the State : M/s. Soumya S. Pandey, AC to A.A.G-I

24/12.09.2024

Heard the parties

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for issuance of direction to the Respondent No.1- the State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Water Resources Department and the Respondent No.2- Executive Engineer, Waterways Division, District-Garhwa to pay his entire pensionary benefits including pension, gratuity, G.P.F. and other admissible dues payable to him.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that he has joined in service on 01.01.1973 on the post of Senior Accounts Clerk and he retired on 31.07.2009 from the same post of Senior Accounts Clerk, Waterways Division, Garhwa.

¶16

Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was paid provisional pension for three years and thereafter, the same was also stopped. It was further submitted that in the year 2021, one F.I.R. was instituted against him that he had taken away his service book and as such, the respondents were not in a position to fix his pension.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the respondents don’t have any papers regarding his date of joining and where he was transferred during the period of his service and what was the last pay drawn by the petitioner. They are not in a position to calculate his pension and other pensionary benefits.

¶18

The respondents are the custodians of service book of its employees. The

¶19

¶20

petitioner had retired on 31.07.2009. When the petitioner started pressing for release of his pension, the respondents brushed aside their responsibility by filing a criminal case against him, alleging that he had taken away his service book. There is no averment in the counter affidavit filed by the State that any negative remarks were made in the service book of the petitioner, due to which, it can be assumed that the petitioner had taken away his service book. The petitioner is undergoing hardships as his pension is not been released. In such circumstances, it is very difficult to conjure as to why the petitioner will keep the service book with himself and undergo great hardship.

¶21

The State has also not come-up with the facts as to under what basis, his provisional pension was calculated and paid to him for three years.

¶22

In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to produce his joining letter along with the last pay certificate drawn by him just before his retirement and on that basis, the Respondent No. 2- Executive Engineer, Waterways Division, District-Garhwa will calculate his pension and pay him provisional pension till they manage to reconstruct the service book of the petitioner. The petitioner will be at liberty to agitate the prayers regarding grant of Assured Career Progression to him after his service book is reconstructed. The Respondent No.2 shall pass a positive order for payment of provisional pension to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶23

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

¶24

Pending I.A., if any, sands disposed of.

¶25

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶26

Nandini/Uploaded

Suresh Prasad Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Water Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Suresh Prasad Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Water Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Routh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panchami Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bala Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madhusudan Soren And Anr. Vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Labour Employment And Training Deptt And Ors.

Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology

Prem Mohan Prasad Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand