Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 902 (JHR)

Sephaniel Kisku v. State of Jharkhand

2010-09-16

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondents and with their consent this application is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. Prayer of the petitioner, in this application is for a direction upon the Respondents to pay him his entire retiral dues including the G.P.F. amount, the arrears of salary for the period 09.08.1999 to 19.09.2001, the benefits of the 01st and the 02nd A.C.P. as well as the benefit of two increments for the years 1999 and 2000 and for re-fixation of his pension by way of consequential benefits of the A.C.P. and due increments. 3. The petitioner had retired from the post of the Circle Inspector, Sarwan Anchal in the District of Deoghar from the Revenue Department on 31.10.2009. During his tenure in office, the petitioner was put under suspension on 09.08.1999. In the writ application filed by the petitioner vide W.P. (S) No. 3719 of 2001, by order dated-10.09.2001, the order of suspension was revoked and after the revocation, the petitioner immediately joined his service on 20.09.2001. 4. The petitioner's grievance is that even after his retirement, he was not paid his due salary for the period of his suspension from 09.08.1999 to 19.09.1999 and neither was he allowed two increments for the years 1999 and 2000 to which he was entitled and he has not even been paid his retiral benefits including the G.P.F. amount, Gratuity and leave encashment amount. It is further submitted that demanding such payments, the petitioner had submitted his representation before the concerned authorities of the Respondents on 29.06.2010 (Annexure-5) but till date, the concerned authorities of the Respondents have not taken any initiative to respond to his demand. 5. From the pleadings in the writ application, it appears that the petitioner had retired from service under the Respondents-authorities in the concerned Department. The petitioner is certainly entitled for payment of his retiral dues. It is not understood as to why, despite the petitioner's representation, the concerned authorities of the Respondents have not taken any decision to address the grievance of the petitioner. 6. Though the counter affidavit has not been filed, but learned Counsel for the Respondent-State is present and submits that a decision on the representation of the petitioner is yet to be taken by the concerned authorities of the Respondents. 7. 6. Though the counter affidavit has not been filed, but learned Counsel for the Respondent-State is present and submits that a decision on the representation of the petitioner is yet to be taken by the concerned authorities of the Respondents. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities of the Respondents to take appropriate decision on the petitioner's demand for payment of his retiral dues as specified in the present writ application and also in his representation dated-29.06.2010 (Annexure-5), within two months from the date of this order and upon making assessment of the total amounts payable to the petitioner by way of his retiral dues and other dues, such amounts shall be paid to the petitioner within one month from the date of the decision taken.