Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1376 (JHR)

Raj Kishore Das v. State of Jharkhand

2008-12-02

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
Order Prayer in this writ application has been made for issuance of an appropriate direction commanding upon the concerned respondents to revise and enhance the pension of the petitioner, who retired from the post of Assistant Teacher and whose basic pay was Rs. 635/- at the time of his retirement in November, 1989. 2. During the tenure of his appointment, the petitioner had admittedly opted for the Triple Benefit Scheme and according to which after his retirement, his pension was fixed initially at Rs. 160/- per month and subsequently the amount has been increased to Rs. 200/- per month. 3. Considering the fact that the Triple Benefit Scheme, which was earlier granted to the Government employees, had subsequently been scrapped by the State Government and in its place another Scheme has been floated under which, the retired employees have been given the benefit 01 a higher amount of pension which, according to the petitioner is at present Rs. 1,200/- per month, the petitioner had also sought for and applied before the concerned authorities to revise and enhance the pension of the petitioner considering the fact that the amount of Rs. 200/- is too meagre and does not correspond to the high cost of Iiving according to the present cost of living index. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents explaining therein that under the Triple Benefit Scheme, which the petitioner had earlier opted for, he was given the benefit of two years of extra service and the payment has also been drawn by him for two extra years. Specific amount of pension was fixed for such Government employees who had opted for the Triple Benefit Scheme. The petitioner as such, cannot claim any revision or any reconsideration on the amount of pension payable to him by way of pension. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. From the facts as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner having opted for the Triple Benefit Scheme, is bound by the terms of the Scheme and the amount of pension fixed under the Scheme. The petitioner therefore, cannot have any right to claim any enhancement. 7. 6. From the facts as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner having opted for the Triple Benefit Scheme, is bound by the terms of the Scheme and the amount of pension fixed under the Scheme. The petitioner therefore, cannot have any right to claim any enhancement. 7. Nevertheless, considering the fact that under the subsequent Pension Scheme, which has been floated by the State Government, the benefits of which are now being availed by the retired Government employees, the amount of pension payable to them is more than Rs. 1,200/- per month and considering the fact that the cost of living, has considerably increased, the respondent-State may take a decision to consider the petitioner's claim and the case of the other retired Government employees similarly placed as the petitioner, for revision and enhancement in the amount of pension payable to them. It is pointed out that on a previous occasion under the Scheme, the State Government in the year 1996, had taken a decision to revise and enhance the pension amount of the retired employees who opted the Triple Benefit Scheme and had raised the amount from Rs. 160/- to Rs. 200/- per month. Since after the above Revision and enhancement, more than 12 years have lapsed, the State Government may consider this aspect of the petitioner's request. 8. In the light of the above discussions, the petitioner may file a fresh representation before the appropriate authority of the respondent-State including a representation before the Fitment Committee and within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the representation alongwith a copy of this order, the State Government shall take an appropriate decision on the petitioner's request sympathetically. 9. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of. 10. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent State.