Disposed

Om Prakash v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Sept 2024WPC/4998/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking confirmation of service for a petitioner working as a peon since 1994. The Court directed Respondent No. 3 to treat the petition as a representation and redress the grievance by passing a reasoned order within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 3 to treat the writ application as a representation and pass a reasoned order within 12 weeks.

Om Prakash 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. 4998 of 2024

¶3

Om Prakash, son of late Narayan Mehta, aged about 55 years, presently posted as Peon, Dairy Development Office, Saraikela- Kharsawan, resident of Harmu Housing Colony, Qtr. No.J/F- 30/10, P.O. & P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.

¶4

....Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand;

¶7

The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi;

¶8

The Director, Dairy Development Directorate, Jharkhand, Farmers Training Centre Campus, Sector-2, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi;

¶9

The District Dairy Development Officer, SaraikelaKharswan, P.O. & P.S. Saraikela-Kharswan, District Saraikela-Kharswan.

¶10

....Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kr. Prasad, Adv. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Adv. For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, A.C. to A.G. ---------

¶13

02/Dated: 10.09.2024

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities for confirmation of service of this petitioner who has been working since 01.08.1994 on ad hoc basis as peon.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the petitioner is working since 01.08.1994 as peon and has been selected after due process of law and he is also having Service Book, GPF Account, regular pay fixation etc.

¶17

He further submits that though similarly situated persons have been granted the similar benefits, however, the petitioner has not been given the same; as such, the respondents be directed to confirm the service of this petitioner.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since no counter affidavit has been filed, the petitioner may approach respondent No.3 so that his grievance can be redressed. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing respondent No.3 to treat this writ application as representation and after verification of the record, redress the grievance of the petitioner by passing a reasoned order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶19

It goes without saying that after passing of the reasoned order, if the same is in favour of the petitioner, then the entire admissible benefits shall be extended to him within a further period of four weeks.

¶20

6. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of.

¶21

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶22

vikas/-

¶23

Om Prakash v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash 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

Suraj Kumar Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand

Shabnam Tuti Vs State of Jharkhand

Ravindra Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Home Jail and Disaster Management

Ravi Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhi Kant Hari Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Binay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand