Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 924 (JHR)

Sahdeo Paswan v. State of Jharkhand

2010-09-21

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2010
JUDGMENT : J.C.S. RAWAT, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner for seeking mandamus to pay the monetary benefits to the Petitioner under the time bound scheme as Petitioner has not been given any promotion during the service career and subsequently after - abolition of time bound promotion scheme and implementation of fifth pay revision, 1996 After revision, the arrear of pay was prepared by Block Development Officer, Boarijore and sent before the Treasury Officer, Godda in the year 2002, but till date no amount has been paid to the Petitioner. It is also admitted to the parties that the Petitioner has retired on 30.06.2003 as Block Co-operative Extension Officer, Boarijore, Godda within the area of State of Jharkhand. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed the counter affidavit in which he has stated in paragraph 5, 6 and 7 which are as under: 5. That it is stated and submitted that it is pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner joined In the Co-operative Department as Supervisor on 24.11.1996, and thereafter due to merger of pest he was given benefit as inspector, Co-operative Societies since 1.7.1979. The Petitioner retired from the service on 30.6.2003 as Block Co-operative Extension Officer, Boarijora Block in Godda district. 6. That it is stated that regarding the claim of the Petitioner it Is pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner has been given promotion in Junior Selection Grade with effect from 1.7.1883, vide departmental order No. 3104 dated 28.06.2006, and in senior selection Grade w.e.f From 1.3.1969 vide departmental order No. 3105 dated 28.6.2006. 7. That it is stated that the Petitioner retired from the post of Block Co-operative Extension Officer, Boarijora block godda district presently in Jharkhand State. That his arrears of Salary and other consequential benefits are payable from the same Office. For this departmental letter No. 6912 dated 06.12.2006 has been written to the concerned authorities. 3. Thus, the Respondent has admitted the liability of the payment and he has stated in his counter affidavit in para 7, that the Petitioner retired-from the post of Block Co-operative Extension Officer, Godda which was carved out in favour of State of Jharkhand from State of Bihar and the arrears of salary and other consequential benefits are payable from the State of Jharkhand. State of Jharkhand has also filed its counter affidavit, and it is stated in para-6, 8, 9 & 10, which are as follows: 6. That It is stated that all the payment as claimed by the Petitioner including allowing the first and second Time bound promotion relates to the State of Bihar, Co-operative Department because all the reliefs claimed by the Petitioner is of the period before creation of the State of Jharkhand and as the Respondent No. 4 by issuance of letter/ memo No. 2191 dated 24.11.2004 has requested the Registrar, Co-operative societies, Bihar at Patna to communicate necessary information in respect of whether any steps have been taken for allowing first and second Time bound promotion so that Counter Affidavit may be filed. 8. That with reference to the statements made in paragraph-3 to 6 of the writ application under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that all the benefits claimed by the Petitioner In respect of time bound promotion relate id the State of Bihar because till today Petitioner's Cadre has not been decided. The Respondent No. 2 herein as well as the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bihar at Patna is the competent authority to supply authentic reply to the statement made in aforesaid paragraphs. 9. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-7 of the writ application under reply, it is stated and submitted that the Petitioner during the period of submission of bill was posted under the B.D.O., Boarihore and, as such, the bill was rightly produced before the Godda Treasury in the year 2002 and according to the Petitioner, the Bill was not cleared, the competent authority for replying this paragraph is Respondent No. 6 and 7 to this writ application. 10. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph- 8 of the writ application under reply, it is stated and submitted that so far as the matter of promotion and allowing time bound promotions are concerned, the same is to verified by the Cooperative Department, State of Bihar at Patna. The Respondent No. 4 has already requested the Registrar, Co-operative Socities, Bihar at Patna, who has not been made a patty-Respondent in this case, to send necessary information by issuance of memo No. 2191 dated 24.11.2004, as stated above. 4. It is stated that till date no reply has been received by the answering Respondent. 5. The Respondent No. 4 has already requested the Registrar, Co-operative Socities, Bihar at Patna, who has not been made a patty-Respondent in this case, to send necessary information by issuance of memo No. 2191 dated 24.11.2004, as stated above. 4. It is stated that till date no reply has been received by the answering Respondent. 5. Thus, they have simply stated that all the benefits claimed by the Petitioner in respect of the time bound promotion relates to the State of Bihar and the Petitioner has not been permanently allocated to the State of Jharkhand. The Respondent has further stated that the Petitioner submitted his Bill to the treasury of Godda, State of Jharkhand and the Bill was not cleared because it relates to State of Bihar. The claim of the Petitioner has not been denied by the Respondents-State of Jharkhand also. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Only question arises in this case that who have to pay the dues which is outstanding towards the State. It is admitted to both the parties that the Petitioner retired from territory of Jharkhand. From perusal of Section 53, Schedule-8 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, clearly reveals that State shall pay the pensionery benefits, dues and arrears of the employees retired or retiring from the area now falling under their jurisdiction subject to final counting adjustment of their liabilities. It is further revealed that the respective State should pay the pecuniary dues and arrears to the employees retired or retiring from the areas now falling under their jurisdiction. In the present case, the Petitioner has retired from the office now falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand State and they will be liable to pay all their retiral benefits and other dues to which they are entitled. The controversy has been settled by this Court in the case of Bharti Prasad Thakur v. Sidhu Kanhu University reported in 2002(2) JCR 554 and the proposition of law as laid down above has been upheld by this Court In the above ruling. 7. I accordingly direct the State Government and its Officers to pay the Petitioners immediately their dues as claimed in the petition within two months from the dated of receipt of the production of the copy of this order. 8. This writ application la accordingly allowed with the above observations and direction. 7. I accordingly direct the State Government and its Officers to pay the Petitioners immediately their dues as claimed in the petition within two months from the dated of receipt of the production of the copy of this order. 8. This writ application la accordingly allowed with the above observations and direction. No order as to cost.