Disposed

Shiv Dayal Gope v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Apr 2024WPC/285/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a retired typist-cum-clerk seeking arrears of salary, pensionary benefits with 1st Assured Career Progression and 6th Pay revision benefits. The claim had been rejected on the ground he did not pass a departmental examination, though no hearing was given. Court disposed of the petition directing him to file representation before the Chief Engineer, Hazaribag, who must constitute a

What the court decided

AI extract

Shiv Dayal Gope 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. 285 of 2023

¶3

Shiv Dayal Gope, aged about 72 years, Son of Late Dukhi Gope, Resident of Village Kesho Bigha Pura, P.O. Mussi, P.S. Tikary, District Gaya, Bihar, PIN Code 824236 … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Secretary, Department of Water and Sanitation, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN-834004.

¶7

The Chief Engineer, Department of Water and Sanitation, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. + P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN - 834002.

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, Tenughat Dam Circle, P.O. + P.S. - Tenughat, Bokaro, Jharkhand, PIN – 829123

¶9

The Sub Treasury Officer, Bermo, Headquarter - Tenughat, P.O. + P.S. - Tenughat, Bokaro, Jharkhand, PIN – 829123

¶10

The Accountant General, Jharkhand, P .O.+P.S.- Doranda, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN - 834002 … … Respondents

¶11

… … Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶14

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Pathak, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Resp.-AG : Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Advocate

¶15

¶16

07/16^th April 2024

¶17

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶18

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

¶19

“for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders for a direction upon the concerned respondents to compute and pay the entire arrear of salary including pensionary benefits after giving the benefits of Assured Carrier Progression Scheme as well as benefits of 6^th Pay revision who has superannuated on 30.09.2003 from the post of typist cum clerk in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Tenughat, Dam Circle, Tenughat, Bokaro, Jharkhand whose P.P.O. No. is 201714092150 alongwith interest.

¶20

(ii) Pass such other order/orders which your Lordships may deem fit and proper to secure ends of justice.”

¶21

¶22

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 stating that the petitioner was appointed on 09.04.1991 and retired from the post of typist-cum-clerk on 30.09.2003 and vide meeting dated 28.12.2010, the application of the petitioner claiming 1^st Assured Career Progressions (ACP) was rejected on the ground that he had not completed 12 years of service since his date of appointment i.e. 09.04.1991. However, the said decision was revisited and another Screening Committee under the chairmanship of Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hazaribag was constituted and it was found that on account of wrong entry as 28.02.2003 as his date of superannuation, the period of 12 years was wrongly calculated. However, vide decision dated 19.06.2023, it has been observed that although the petitioner had completed minimum 12 years of service by taking his actual date of retirement as 30.09.2003, but in absence of passing departmental examination during the tenure of service, the claim of the petitioner has again been rejected vide decision dated 19.06.2023 and this happened during the pendency of this writ petition.

¶23

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no averment in the counter-affidavit as to whether any departmental examination was held during the period and whether similarly situated persons who have been granted the benefit of 1^st ACP had also passed the departmental examination or not. The learned counsel has also submitted that while passing the fresh order in the meeting dated 19.06.2023 no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. He submits that it may be kept open to the petitioner to approach the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hazaribag, who has passed the order dated 19.06.2023, so that the aforesaid plea of the petitioner may also be considered.

¶24

5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that though no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner while taking a decision in the Screening Committee Meeting held on 19.06.2023 during the pendency of this case, but if the petitioner has any further grievance, he may approach the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hazaribag who may look into

¶25

¶26

the grievance of the petitioner and also consider the cases of similarly situated persons who have already been granted the benefit. He shall also take into consideration as to whether any departmental examination was held during the tenure of the petitioner and what is the consequences of not passing the departmental examination when no departmental examination was at all held. The learned counsel submits that admissible retiral benefits have already been paid to the petitioner and the petitioner is also receiving pension.

¶27

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the claim of the petitioner for grant of 1^st ACP was initially rejected way back in the year 2010 on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 12 years of service. However, subsequently the said decision was re-visited by the respondents during the pendency of this case and it was found that the petitioner had completed 12 years of service but the claim of 1^st ACP has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not pass the departmental examination. There is no whisper as to whether any departmental examination was at all held during the period in which it is alleged that the petitioner did not pass the departmental examination. It is also important that if there is other similarly situated persons like that of the petitioner who have been granted the benefit of 1^st ACP then there is no reason to deny such benefit to the petitioner.

¶28

7. The fact remains that the Screening Committee Meeting held on 19.06.2023 was in absence of the petitioner and therefore there was no occasion for the petitioner to raise his grievance in connection with holding of departmental examination and the case of any similarly situated persons.

¶29

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hazaribag by filing a detailed representation in connection with any further plea which may be available to the petitioner but not considered in the Screening Committee Meeting held on 19.06.2023 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner during the pendency of this case. The representation with foundational details be filed

¶30

¶31

along with a copy of the writ records and a copy of this order within a period of one month from today.

¶32

9. If such a representation is filed, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hazaribag shall look into the grievance of the petitioner by constituting a fresh Screening Committee Meeting and the decision taken in the Screening Committee Meeting dated 19.06.2023 will not come in the way of taking a fresh decision, if the petitioner is otherwise found entitled in law. Let the needful be done within a period of 3 months from the date of representation.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶36

Mukul

¶37

Shiv Dayal Gope v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shiv Dayal Gope 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

Bhuneshwar Rajwar Vs State of Jharkhand

Janki Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Transport Deptt

Chandra Kant Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shashiranjan Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Deptt of Personnel Admn Reforms and Rajbhasha

Sandip Mazumdar Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Deptt of Personnel Admn Reforms and Rajbhasha

Lal Mohan Singh Vs the Secretary Deptt of School Education and Literacy Government of Jharkhand