Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1309 (JHR)

Ramadhar Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2009-09-16

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
Order Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner retired from service as Assistant on 31.1.2002 while posted in Civil Court, Palamau at Daltonganj. His grievance is that though he was senior most Assistant in the District of Palamau, but a person junior to him namely Krishna Mohan Prasad i.e. the respondent no.-6, was promoted as Seristedar and was posted at Latehar on 29.9.2001 after the said District was newly created. The petitioner claims in this application that he should also be given promotional benefit from the date his junior was promoted i.e., 29.9.2001, and accordingly, his pensionary benefits should be revised. Further prayer of the petitioner is for direction to the respondents to pay ex-gratia compensation as he has been declared physically disabled during performing his duties. Lastly, his prayer is for payment of medical allowances to the tune of As. 2,50,000/- which he incurred in his treatment. 3. So far as the claim for promotional benefit to the post of Seristedar is concerned, admittedly, the District of Latehar was created on 29.9.2001, and a person was required to be posted as Seristedar at the newly created District on urgent basis. At that time, the petitioner though was senior most Assistant available was seriously ill and was under going treatment at Patna, therefore, he was not in a position to join as Seristedar at newly created District of Latehar. He did not show his willingness also, and therefore, finding no other way, the next senior most person i.e. respondent No.6, Krishna Mohan Prasad, was posted as Seristedar on 29.9.2001 considering the present exigency at that time. The promotion of respondent No. 6 as Seristedar was purely provisional. 4. Even according to the petitioner he joined his service again only on 4.12.2001 after recovery from illness but as it appears that even thereafter he did not show his willingness to join at Latehar. 5. As it appears from the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner after rejoining on 4.12.2001, did not make any grievance before any authority, nor did he show his willingness that he is ready to join at latehar as Seristedar. Presumably, because of the fact that he was going to retire in the next month, and therefore, he may not have put forward his such claim. Presumably, because of the fact that he was going to retire in the next month, and therefore, he may not have put forward his such claim. It is only after his retirement he has claimed for payment of giving him pay scale of Seristedar since the person junior to him was made and posted as Seristedar at latehar. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 6. In paragraph no. 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the Registrar General' of the High Court, it has been stated that the petitioner has cunningly suppressed the real facts, and the fact is that for the first time he made his representation before the authority for getting scale of Seristedar much after his superannuation, and therefore, the said claim was rejected vide Memo No. 2157 dated 5.9.2002. It is further stated in the said paragraph that Shri Krishna Mohan Prasad was made Seristedar provisionally considering the exigency and also keeping in view the absence of the petitioner as he was not fit to join his duties. Further, it is stated that the petitioner after rejoining on 4.12.2001 never filed any representation expressing his willingness to join at latehar. These facts have not been denied by the petitioner by filing rejoinder to the counter affidavit. 7. Considering the above fact, I find that the claim of the petitioner for giving the pay scale of Seristedar has rightly been rejected. 8. Now, coming to the second prayer of the petitioner regarding reimbursement of the expenses incurred in medical treatment, in paragraph no. 13 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner did not get himself treated in a Government Hospital or any such Medical Institution where he was referred to by the Medical Board. He did not furnish also the required papers warranting reimbursement of expenses incurred in the alleged treatment, and as such; he is not entitled to get ex gratia compensation. It is also stated that, however, considering the fact that the petitioner has become handicapped, and therefore, his claim has been forwarded to the office of the Accountant General for extending T.A. allowance admissible under the law to a handicapped employee, and the same has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder. 9. It is also stated that, however, considering the fact that the petitioner has become handicapped, and therefore, his claim has been forwarded to the office of the Accountant General for extending T.A. allowance admissible under the law to a handicapped employee, and the same has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder. 9. Since the petitioner did not get himself treated in a Government Hospital or in such Medical Institution where he was referred by the Medical Board, and therefore, in my view, the claim of the petitioner for payment of ex gratia or for reimbursement of medical expenses cannot be entertained. 10. Accordingly, this application has got no merit, and as such, the same is dismissed. 11. However, it is observed that if the petitioner files a representation stating in detail his claim and grievance for reimbursement of expenses incurred in his medical treatment alongwith supporting admissible documents before the District Judge, Palamau, within a period of four weeks, the District Judge shall consider the claim of the petitioner and shall take an appropriate step in the matter for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner. 12. With these observations and directions, this writ application is dismissed. No costs.