Disposed¶28

Upendra Sharma, v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC3 Sept 2024CWJC/6028/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWJC No.6028 of 2022, Upendra Sharma v. State of Bihar & Ors., Patna High Court, Harish Kumar, J., 03-09-2024, NAFR. Keywords: Group Insurance; General Provident Fund (GPF); up-to-date statutory interest; retiral benefits; Pension and Gratuity not pressed; termination upheld by Apex Court; Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019; appointment illegal and void ab initio; letter no.571(4) dated 01.07.2020; parity with identically situated employees; Article 226; Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad; payment within six weeks; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.3, the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad, to ensure payment of the GPF amount with up-to-date interest and the Group Insurance amount within six weeks; prayer for Pension and Gratuity not pressed. ¶28

Upendra Sharma, Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose termination and whose appointment (found illegal and void ab initio) stand affirmed up to the Hon'ble Apex Court, is entitled to payment of Group Insurance and General Provident Fund with up-to-date statutory interest in light of letter no.571(4) dated 01.07.2020, on parity with identically situated persons who were allowed such benefits.

¶20

Court's answer

Letter no.571(4) dated 01.07.2020 still holds the field and is in consonance with the statutory rules governing Provident Fund and Group Insurance.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Identically situated persons who were party to the litigation before the Hon'ble Apex Court were allowed Group Insurance and GPF benefits despite affirmation of dismissal by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and this fact was not disputed.

¶27

Key takeaways

The Court directed respondent no.3, the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad, to ensure payment of the GPF amount with up-to-date interest as well as the Group Insurance amount within six weeks.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Harish Kumar, J., oral judgment dated 03-09-2024) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Upendra Sharma seeking a direction for payment of Group Insurance and General Provident Fund with up-to-date statutory interest in light of letter no.571(4) dated 01.07.2020 issued by the Director in Chief (Disease Control, Public Health Para Medicals), Health Services, Bihar. The petitioner's termination had been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019 and other analogous cases, and his appointment was stated to be illegal and void ab initio; the prayer for Pension and Gratuity was therefore not pressed. Holding that letter no.571(4) dated 01.07.2020 still holds the field and is in consonance with the statutory rules governing Provident Fund and Group Insurance, and noting that identically situated persons who were party to the litigation before the Hon'ble Apex Court were allowed these benefits despite affirmation of dismissal — a fact not disputed — the Court directed respondent no.3, the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad, to ensure payment of the GPF amount with up-to-date interest and the Group Insurance amount within six weeks.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6028 of 2022

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Upendra Sharma, S/o Sri Ram Swaroop Singh, R/o Village-Raily, P.S.Belaganj, District - Gaya.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Director in Chief (Disease Control, Public Health, Para Medicals), Health Services, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad.

¶9

The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Nabinagar, Aurangabad.

¶10

The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Goh, Aurangabad.

¶11

The District Provident Fund Officer, Aurangabad.

¶12

The Treasury Officer, Aurangabad.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mujtabaul Haque, GP-12 Mr. Vastant Vikash AC to GP-12

¶15

======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

Date : 03-09-2024

¶18

Heard Mr. Shiv Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶19

petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶20

The petitioner by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has preferred this writ application seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to ensure payment of Group Insurance and General Provident Fund to him along with up-todate statutory interest till the date of payment, in light of the

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.6028 of 2022 dt.03-09-2024 2/3

¶22

letter no.571(4) dated 01.07.2020, issued by the Director in Chief (Disease Control, Public Health Para Medicals) Health Services, Bihar (Annexure-2 to the writ petition).

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner, though initially prayed for other retiral benefits, however, in view of the fact that termination of the petitioner and other identically situated persons has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019 and other analogus cases, he is not pressing the prayer with regard to the other retiral benefits, e.g. Pension and Gratuity. It is further contended that other similarly situated persons who were also party to the litigation even before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they have been allowed the benefits of Group Insurance as well as General Provident Fund. Many of the orders of this Court have been produced before this Court in order to strengthen and reinforce his submission that others have been allowed similar benefits in the light of the letter no.571(4) dated 01.07.2020.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit has submitted that since the very appointment of the petitioner has been found to be illegal and void ab initio and that has been affirmed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner is not

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.6028 of 2022 dt.03-09-2024 3/3

¶26

entitled for any benefit.

¶27

Having heard the contentions of learned counsels for the respective parties and taking note of the intent of letter no.571(4) dated 01.07.2020, which still holds the field and this Court finds it in consonance with the statutory rules which govern the Provident Fund and Group Insurance as also the fact that identically situated persons who were party to the litigation before the Hon’ble Apex Court, despite their affirmation of dismissal by the Hon’ble Apex Court, they have been allowed the benefits; and this fact has also not been disputed. In view thereof, this Court has left with no option but to direct respondent no.3, the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad, to ensure payment of aforesaid GPF amount along with up-to-date interest as well as Group Insurance amount within a period of six weeks from today.

¶28

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

¶29

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶30

rohit/-

¶31

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	04-09-2024
Transmission Date

Upendra Sharma, v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Sharma, v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Ayodhya Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Ratan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Smt. Raj Lakshmi Mishra Vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director

Bijay Kumar, Vs The Department of Energy

Rohit Yadav Vs The State of Bihar