Birshi Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P(S) No. 839 of 2018

---------------

Birshi Devi w/o late Sujeet Oraon, aged about 53 years, r/o village-Chala Nagar, PO-Harmu, PS-Argora, District-Ranchi ...... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Planning -Cum- Finance Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.. Doranda, District Ranchi 4. The Regional Chief Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Dornda, District Ranchi. 5. Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. .... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate For the State of Jharkhand : Mrs. Soumya S. Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate

¶10

Order No.13/Dated: 6^th March 2024

¶11

This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the post-retiral dues i.e. gratuity, promotional benefit of head typist including increment of the scale of the said post since 28^th April 1988 and further the benefit of 1^st A.C.P/2^nd A.C.P/M.A.C.P and to fix the final pension and also pay the difference amount of A.C.P/ M.A.C.P and other benefit which have not been paid to the petitioner despite being retired on December 2015 from the post of head typist (Upper Division Cleark) with interest.

¶12

Mrs. Soumya S. Pandey, the learned State counsel states that all admissible post retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner. The learned State counsel referring to the Annexure-A of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 17^th February 2024 submits that all the retiral benefits of the petitioner have been made. She further submits that in the said counter-affidavit from paragraph ns.8 onwards the details of payment of all the retiral dues of the petitioner have been described.

¶13

2 W.P(S) No.839 of 2018

¶14

3. Paragraph nos. 8 to 10 of the supplementary counter-affidavit

¶15

dated 17^th February 2024 are extracted below:

¶16

“8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that with respect to the prayers of the petitioner it is stated that all the retiral benefits have already been paid to the petitioner.

¶17

That it is most humbly stated and submitted that in the light of the judgment passed by the Honourable High Court, Jharkhand, Ranchi in the case No. Cr A(DB) NO- 08/1991 (R) and the order given by the Engineer-in- Chief, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, the Finance Department, Jharkhand, The sixth pay revision was verified and the pay was enhanced for the deceased husband of the petitioner and the same was communicated to the petitioner as well vide order dated 03.11.2022.

¶18

That it is most humbly stated and submitted that vide letter no. 1201 dated 30.11.2023 the answering respondent had communicated with the Accountant General, Ranchi and informed that because of the criminal appeal (DB) pending before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, the 6^th pay revision was pending at the end of the department. However, in the light of the judgment passed in the concerned case the revised amount was paid to the petitioner vide order dated 3.11.2022. The pension papers were sent to the accountant general office vide the said letter.

¶19

That it is most humbly stated and submitted that all the dues have already been paid to the petitioner and the pension papers have also been forwarded to the Accountant General's office by the answering respondents therefore the claims of the petitioner have been redressed.”

¶20

In view of the specific averments made in the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 17^th February 2024, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)

¶22

Sudhir

Birshi Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birshi Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Pr Secretary Deptt of Higher Technical Education and Skill Develop

Dr Wakil Ahmed Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary Ministry of Human Resources Development

Dr Bhrigu Nandan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Deptt of Higher and Technical Education

Bishwanath Singh Vs the Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank Limited through the Chairman

Dr Bhola Nath Sahay Vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Culture

Arun Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Higher Education Higher Technical Education and Skill