Allowed

Dukha Das and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC13 Jul 2016CWJC/14216/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petitioners permission to withdraw their case to approach the District Magistrate, holding that it is the District Magistrate's domain to decide on the payment of rehabilitation grants and pensions.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition and approach the District Magistrate within six weeks to decide on the payment of rehabilitation dues and pension.

Dukha Das and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14216 of 2013 =========================================================== 1. Dukha Das S/O Swarup Das, Resident Of Village- Tejoul, P.S.- Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur 2. Devanand Rout S/O Late Parichhan Rout R/O Village- Maheshwara, P.S.Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur 3. Nawal Rout S/O Lothe Rout R/O Village- Maheshwara, P.S.- Gaighat, DistrictMuzaffarpur 4. Chunchun Das S/O Late Banshi Das R/O Village- Tejoul, P.S.- Gaighat, DistrictMuzaffarpur 5. Binod Das S/O Parichhan Das R/O Village- Tejoul, P.S.- Gaighat, DistrictMuzaffarpur 6. Trishul Paswan S/O Bihari Paswan R/O Village- Maheshwara, P.S.- Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur 7. Maheshwar Das S/O Late Parohan Das R/O Village- Tejoul, P.S.- Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur 8. Binod Das S/O Ramashish Das R/O Village- Tejoul, P.S.- Gaighat, DistrictMuzaffarpur 9. Laxmi Das S/O Late Banshi Das R/O Village- Tejoul, P.S.- Gaighat, DistrictMuzaffarpur 10. Birendra Mahto S/O Late Tetar Mahto R/O Village- Tejoul, P.S.- Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur 11. Mishri Das S/O Banwari Das R/O Village- Tejoul, P.S.- Gaighat, DistrictMuzaffarpur 12. Jyoti Paswan S/O Sri Bihari Paswan R/O Village- Maheshwara, P.S.- Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur 13. Keshwar Paswan S/O Prakash Paswan R/O Village- Barri Bhwanipur, P.S.Katra, District- Muzaffarpur 14. Bitan Paswan S/O Late Fakira Paswan R/O Village- Maheshwara, P.S.Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur 15. Ram Briksha Das S/O Sri Jogi Das R/O Village- Tejoul, P.S.- Gaighat, DistrictMuzaffarpur 16. Shyam Lal Dev S/O Sri Rajendra Lal Dev R/O Village- Bathwara, P.S.Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur 17. Ram Das S/O Mahendra Das R/O Village- Tejoul, P.S.- Gaighat, DistrictMuzaffarpur 18. Babu Lal Das S/O Banwari Das R/O Village- Tejoul, P.S.- Gaighat, DistrictMuzaffarpur 19. Upendra Paswan S/O Late Newati Paswan R/O Village- Maheshwara, P.S.Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur 20. Gonu Das S/O Late Bahadur Das R/O Village- Tejoul, P.S.- Gaighat, DistrictMuzaffarpur 21. Maheshwar Das S/O Late Hansu Das R/O Village- Tejoul, P.S.- Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State Of Bihar

¶6

The Home Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

¶7

The Home Commissioner, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.14216 of 2013 dt.13-07-2016

¶9

2/5

¶10

The Director General Of Police, Govt. Bihar, Patna

¶11

The Inspector General Of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur

¶12

The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur

¶13

The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

¶14

The Senior Superintendent Of Police, Muzaffarpur

¶15

The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, East Muzaffarpur

¶16

The Block Development Officer, Gaigthat, Muzaffarpur

¶17

The Block Development Officer, Katra, Muzaffarpur

¶18

The Officer Incharge, Gaighat, Muzaffarpur

¶19

The Officer Incharge, Katra, Muzaffarpur

¶20

.... .... Respondent/s

¶21

=========================================================== Appearance :

¶22

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH For the Respondent/s : Mr. RAJENDRA KR. JHA

¶23

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-07-2016

¶24

As the case of the petitioner nos. 20 and 21 are distinguishable from the case of other petitioners, the counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of the Court to withdraw their case enabling them to approach the District Magistrate for ventilation of their grievances.

¶25

Prayer is allowed.

¶26

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the State.

¶27

These petitioners were earlier part of the outlaw group called Maowadi (M.C.C.). The State Government came out with a resolution (Annexure-1) enabling such members of the banned group or the extremist group to surrender and join the mainstreams and become part of the society. Package(s) under the government resolution was/were announced for their rehabilitation and support. Clause 6 and 9 of the rehabilitation plan (Annexure-1) reads as under:-

¶28

¼6½ izR;iZ.k djusokys mxzoknh dks rkRdkfyd lgk;drk ds :i esa :0 10]000@& ¼nl gtkj :i;s½ ek= fn;s tk;sxs rFkk

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.14216 of 2013 dt.13-07-2016

¶30

3/5

¶31

iquokZl ;kstuk dh Lohd`fr gksus rd izfrekg :0 3]000@& ¼rhu gtkj :0½ ek= dh lgk;rk nh tk;sxhA

¶32

¼9½ iquokZl lfefr }kjk tks iquokZl ifj;kstuk rS;kj dh tk;sxh] mldh vf/kdre jkf”k :0 2]00]000 ¼nks yk[k :0½ ek= gksxhA izR;iZ.k djusokys mxzoknh dh fxj¶rkjh gsrq ;fn jkT; ljdkj }kjk dksbZ iqjLdkj jkf”k ?kksf’kr gks rks og iqjLdkj&jkf”k Hkh mDr mxzoknh dks iquokZl&jkf”k ds vfrfjDr nh tk;sxhA iquokZl ifj;kstuk dh jkf”k dk 50 izfr”kr vuqnku rFkk 50 izfr”kr _.k&Lo:i gksxkA

¶33

It is stated that upon their surrender, they were paid a sum of Rs. one lakh and few other amount as grant/ex gratia. The respondent State, as per the decision/resolution of the government, is obliged to pay a sum of Rs. two lakh out of which one lakh shall be in the shape of the loan. It is contended that they having not been rehabilitated by paying the entire amount of rehabilitation, is entitled

¶34

to payment of the pension @ Rs. 3000/- per month until complete rehabilitation which has been paid to the petitioners for only 12 months. In the case of others, who are identically placed, the respondent(s) have paid the monthly payment/pension @ Rs. 3000/until payment of the remaining amount under the resolution for their complete rehabilitation.

¶35

On the other hand, the respondents have contended relying on Annexure-C that the Punjab National Bank has informed the Block Development Officer that these petitioners have not contacted the Bank for the release of the loan amount of Rs. one lakh. The other benefits/payments have been made. In the counter affidavit, similar stand has been taken that the petitioners have to approach the Bank for advancement of loan of Rs. 01 lakh whereafter the formality

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.14216 of 2013 dt.13-07-2016

¶37

4/5

¶38

shall be completed and the loan according to the resolution shall be paid/disbursed.

¶39

On going through the statements made in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it appears that the respondent State has not denied/disputed the claim of the petitioners for payment of the rehabilitation grant/amount as also payment of Rs. one lakh out of the said grant/amount to each of the petitioners. The grievance is that only the loan amount has not been sanctioned and disbursed. The petitioners would be entitled to payment in the sum of Rs. 3000/- on monthly basis. In course of submission it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that other persons similarly situate have been paid a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month under the orders of the District Magistrate until the loan amount was sanctioned/paid.

¶40

In my view, it is a matter which requires to be examined/considered by the District Magistrate who is stated to be the authority at the district level to take such decision in the case of persons like the writ petitioners. In fact, some of the persons similarly situated were ordered to be paid certain amount under the orders of the District Magistrate.

¶41

Consequently, the petitioners shall file

¶42

application/representation raising the grievance with regard to nonpayment of the remaining rehabilitation amount in the sum of Rs. one lakh as also non-payment of the dues in the sum of Rs. 3000/- per month until payment of full rehabilitation amount to them before the respondent District Magistrate along with a copy of the present order enabling him to take a final decision and/or pass appropriate order in

¶43

Patna High Court CWJC No.14216 of 2013 dt.13-07-2016

¶44

5/5

¶45

accordance with law as quickly as possible preferably within 06 weeks from the date of such filing/presentation.

¶46

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶47

HR/-
U

Dukha Das and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dukha Das and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Chandan Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Bharat Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Chikoo Kumar @ Abhimanyu Vs The State Of Bihar

Nabi Hassan Dewan and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Sheela Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mosomat Munni Devi Vs Bhagwat Poddar and Ors.