Disposed

MD Shamsul Haque Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Sept 2024WPC/2863/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking promotional benefit from Grade-VI to Grade-VII scale under the Teachers Promotional Rules, 1993. Court disposed of the petition directing respondent No.3 to treat it as a representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to decide the representation by reasoned speaking order within 12 weeks; consequential benefits if allowed.

MD Shamsul Haque Ansari Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2863 of 2024

¶2

Md. Shamsul Haque Ansari aged about 71 years s/oLate Md. Haijun Ansari, Resident of Village-Chhota Ranga, Post-Ghatiyari, P.S-Ranga, District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand;

¶3

....Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand;

¶6

The Secretary Schooli Shiksha and Literacy Department of Education P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand;

¶7

The Director Primary Education Directorate of primary education Government of Jharkhand having its office at Dhurwa PO & PS-Dhurwa, DistrictRanchi, Jharkhand;

¶8

The Regional Deputy Director of Education Santhal Pargana Pramandal, Dumka, P.O + P.S & DistrictDumka, Jharkhand;

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner Sahibganj cum Chairman of District Education Establishment Committee, Sahibganj, P.O + P.S & DistrictSahibganj, Jharkhand;

¶10

The District Education Officer Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. & District Sahibganj, Jharkhand;

¶11

The District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj, PO+PS & District- Sahibganj, Jharkhand.

¶12

....Respondents

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Adv. For the Resp.-State : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P.-I

¶16

04/Dated:-18.09.2024

¶17

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶18

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to grant promotional monetary benefit from GradeVI to Grade-VII scale with immediate effect in view of the Teachers Promotional Rules, 1993, as he has fulfilled all the criteria for his promotion from Grade-VI to Grade-VII scale. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶19

though, the petitioner is entitled for all promotional benefit from Grade-VI to Grade-VII scale as per Teachers Promotional Rule, 1993, but for the reason best known to the respondents, the same benefit has still not been extended to this petitioner. He further draws attention of this Court towards the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein, similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit what has been prayed for in the instant writ application.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that since no counter affidavit has been filed in this case; as such, the petitioner may be directed to file a fresh representation before the competent authority so that his grievance can be redressed.

¶21

5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions of learned counsels for the parties, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the respondent No.3 to treat this writ application as representation and take a decision in the matter in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

¶22

If the decision will be in favour of the petitioner, necessary consequential benefits be also extended to him. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶23

6. As a result, the instant writ application stands disposed of.

¶24

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶25

vikas/-

¶26

MD Shamsul Haque Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Shamsul Haque Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marufa Khatun Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukendar Kumar Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary/ Pr Secretary Deptt of Forest Environment and Climate

Manoj Tirkey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gaya Lal Hembram Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of School Education and Literacy

Sunil Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhim Bauri Vs Chief Manager Cum Managing Director