Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1275 (JHR)

Chitranjan Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-09-11

D.N.PATEL

body2009
Judgment 1. Before learned counsel for the petitioner argues, in detail, that under several headings retirement benefits have not been paid, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that now a detailed order has been passed on 9th September, 2009 by the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby, the following amounts have been paid. Sl No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Date of Payment 1. Group Insurance 61,663/-13-02-2007 2. Leave Encashment (on benefit of ACP) 1,14,088/-19,368/-11-01-2007 08-09-2009 3. Gratuity (Provisional) 2,34,306/-11-01-2007 4. Arrears of Salary (29.07.2000 to 14.11.2000) 42,611/-December, 2006 5. Salary (Nov. 02 & Dec.02) 30,738/-December, 2006 6. GPF (Up-to-date Interest) 20,728/-809/-2,12,732/-06-09-2008 20-07-2009 09-09-2009 7. Arrears of ACP 52,760/-04-09-2009 8. Interest of ACP 9,431/-09-09-2009 9. Provisional Pension @ 5,012/- month up to August, 2009 2. In view of the aforesaid payments, as stated in the show cause, filed by the opposite party no.3, though there is belated order passed by the aforesaid officer, but, there is compliance of the impugned order passed by this Court and there is no willful disobedience of the impugned order now and, therefore, I see no reason to initiate any action under the Contempt of Court Act. Nonetheless, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that looking to the impugned order passed by this Court that upon delayed payment, over and above statutory interest @ 10% interest per annum shall be awarded, the petitioner may be given liberty to calculate, after taking help of a proper person, whether the interest calculated by the opposite parties is in consonance of the order passed by this Court or not? Liberty may be given to the petitioner to demand such an interest from the opposite parties, if not given. The aforesaid payment is accepted by the petitioner under protest. 3. In view of these submissions, I hereby, dispose of this contempt application, reserving liberty with the petitioner to raise a demand of the interest amount only if it is not granted by the opposite parties, as directed by this Court otherwise, the petitioner is satisfied with the aforesaid payment. 4. 3. In view of these submissions, I hereby, dispose of this contempt application, reserving liberty with the petitioner to raise a demand of the interest amount only if it is not granted by the opposite parties, as directed by this Court otherwise, the petitioner is satisfied with the aforesaid payment. 4. This Court, vide order dated 26th August, 2009, has given a direction to the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand not to pay salary to the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, till the impugned order is complied with, but, as stated hereinabove, now final order has been passed and a sizeable amount has already been paid, which was legally payable to the petitioner, who has no other means of livelihood except this amount and therefore, I hereby, direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand to make the payment of the salary to the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. This Court appreciates the painstakingly assistance, rendered by this officer, so that the petitioner can get sizeable amount. Henceforth, all care shall be taken by the opposite parties to comply with the Court’s order within stipulated time, especially when the retirement benefits are ordered to be paid.