Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 310 (JHR)

Hari Narayan Mishra v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-03-13

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioners, who retired from service on 31.1.1999 as Store Keeper from the office of Executive Engineer, irrigation Mechanical Division, Deo-ghar, has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to make payment of the entire retiral benefits, including G.P.F. amount for the period from 1963 to 1995 and difference of salary for the period from 1.1.1996. His further prayer is to re-fix the final pension after giving him the benefit on revision of pay with effect from 1.1.1996. 2. By filing counter-affidavit on behalf of the State, it has been stated that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1733 of 2003 and the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. Before the Lok Adalat, held on 1.8.2004, the petitioner was given a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,46,861/- towards the amount of Group Insurance, final G.P.F. for the period from 1.9.1995 to 31.1.1999, leave salary and duty pay for the period from 1.9.1995 to 30.4.1996, leave salary and duty pay for the period from 1.5.1998 to 30.6.1998 and 1.11.1998 to 31.12.1998, arrears of increments for the period from 1.12.1991 to 31.3.1997, arrears of central pay fixation and house rent for the period from 1.4.1997 to 31.1.1999 amounting to Rs. 1,47,155/- after deducting bank commission of Rs. 294/-. It has further been stated in the counter-affidavit that a sum of Rs. 2,23,070/- was deposited in the bank account of the petitioner with the State Bank of India, Deoghar, towards 90% provisional pension for the period from February, 1999 to June, 2003 and 90% gratuity and in this manner, the petitioner has been paid Rs. 3,82,931/- before the Lok Adalat towards the retiral dues. It has specifically been stated in the counter-affidavit that so far as G.P.F. amount is concerned, the entire amount was paid to the petitioner. 3. It has further been stated that for the period from 1963 to 31.8.1995 the petitioner was posted at Madhepura and Birpur and thereafter he was transferred in the year, 1995 to Deoghar from where he retired on 31.1.1999. The G.P.F. deduction statement for the period when the petitioner was posted at Madhepura and Birpur could not be made available to the District Provident Fund Officer, Deoghar and, therefore, the G.P.F. amount for the said period could not be paid to the petitioner. The G.P.F. deduction statement for the period when the petitioner was posted at Madhepura and Birpur could not be made available to the District Provident Fund Officer, Deoghar and, therefore, the G.P.F. amount for the said period could not be paid to the petitioner. It is also stated that letters were written to the G.P.F. Cell, Saharsa for making available the statement of G.P.F. deductions but till date the statement has not been made available and, therefore, payment has not been made. In this regard it is further stated in the counter-affidavit that salary of the petitioner has already been fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000/- as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Commission with effect from 1.1.1996 and the difference of salary for the period from 1.4.1997 to 31.1.1999 i.e. the date of retirement, amounting to Rs. 35,699/- has already been paid to the petitioner before the Lok Adalat on 1.8.2004 and, therefore nothing is payable on that account. 4. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that since the petitioner retired from service on 31.1.1999 and, therefore, the benefit of revised pay scale with effect from 8.8.2002 cannot be given to him. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that his pension has been wrongly fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. In fact, his pension ought to have been fixed giving him the pay scale of Rs. 4,500-7,000/-. In that regard a representation has already been filed by the petitioner on 22.3.2007, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. 6. In view of the facts, noticed above, it appears that almost all the grievances of the petitioner have already been redressed and, therefore, no further direction is required to be issued. However, the petitioner is given liberty that for rest of his claim, if so advised, he may file a fresh representation before the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Irrigation, Deoghar, stating therein the details of his claim/grievance within a period of two weeks. If such a representation is filed by the petitioner within the aforesaid period, the authority concerned shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and dispose of the same by a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. If such a representation is filed by the petitioner within the aforesaid period, the authority concerned shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and dispose of the same by a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. It is further observed that no sooner the statement with regard to the G.P.F. deductions for the period the petitioner, while he was posted at Madhepura and Birpur, is received, the same shall be processed and the due amount, payable to the petitioner, should be paid to him forthwith along with the admissible interest, if any.