Disposed

Alok Pathak v. Life Insurance Corporation of India through Its Chairman

Jharkhand HC12 Sept 2024WPC/5088/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking arrears of salary due to wage revisions of 2016 and 2021 that were not paid. Court disposed of it by directing respondent No.2 to treat the petition as a representation, verify records, pass a reasoned order within 12 weeks and grant consequential benefits within 6 weeks if the claim is genuine.

What did the court decide?

Petition to be treated as representation; reasoned decision within 12 weeks; consequential benefits within further 6 weeks if claim genuine.

Alok Pathak Vs Life Insurance Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5088 of 2024

¶2

Alok Pathak, aged about 44 years, Son of Late Gopal Jee Pathak, Resident of Flat No.R/4-12, L.I.C. Staffs Quarters, Adityapur, P.O.-Adityapur, P.S.-Adityapur, District-Seraikella Kharswan, State-Jharkhand.

¶3

....Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Chairman, Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, P.O. Yogakshema Building, P.S. Nariman Point, District-Mumbai, State-Maharashtra;

¶6

Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash Building, Bistpur Main Road, Jamshedpur, P.S. Bistpur, P.O. Bistpur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, State-Jharkhand;

¶7

The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Jamshedpur, Jeevan Prakash Building, Bistpur Main Road, Jamshedpur, P.S. Bistpur, P.O. Bistpur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, State-Jharkhand;

¶8

The Manager (P & IR), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jamshedpur Division, Jeevan Prakash Building, Bistpur Main Road, Jamshedpur, P.S. Bistpur, P.O. Bistpur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, State-Jharkhand.

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Dubey, Adv. Mr. Raju Koiri, Adv. For the Resp.-L.I.C. : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Adv. --------- 02/Dated:-12.09.2024

¶13

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶14

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay the arrear of salary with effect from 2012 on account of revision of salary occurred in March, 2016 and further, the arrear of salary arisen due to wage revision in April, 2021; which has not been given to this petitioner.

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶16

petitioner is duly entitled for the relief as prayed for in this writ application. Even the similarly situated persons have been granted the same benefit, but for the reason best known to the respondents, his grievance has not yet been redressed; as such, the respondents may be directed to look into the matter and pass an appropriate order.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-L.I.C. submits that since no counter affidavit has been filed; as such, the petitioner may be directed to file a fresh representation before the respondent No.2, so that his grievance can be addressed.

¶18

5. Having regard to the limited submissions of learned counsels for the parties, without going into merits of the case, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the respondent No.2 to treat this writ application as representation and after verification of record, take a decision in the matter by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and if the claim of the petitioner is found to be genuine, necessary consequential benefit be also given to him within a further period of 6 weeks.

¶19

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

¶20

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶21

vikas/-

¶22

Alok Pathak v. Life Insurance Corporation of India through Its Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Pathak v. Life Insurance Corporation of India through Its Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Kishore Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Nawal Kishor Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shri Biswanath Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Durgesh Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary, Human Resources Development Deptt (Primary Education)

Ramesh Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Department

Kranti Kumari Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director