Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1043 (JHR)

Ram Dahin Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2011-11-25

D.N.PATEL

body2011
ORDER By the Court.- The petitioner has retired from service on, 30th June, 2002 and present petition has been preferred for payment of following retirement benefits. which are yet to be paid to the petitioner. (a) Bonus for the period of 1998-1999. (b) Sixth Pay Revision has not been fixed hence the benefit of Sixth Pay Revision. (c) Salary for the period of two months leave taken during his posting at the office of Motor Vehicle Inspector. Chas, Bokaro. (d) Salary for the period of 2-1/2 months leave taken during posting of the petitioner at Darbhanga (e) Salary for the period of 20 days leave taken during his posting at Gaya. (f) Amount of Earned Leave Encashment for the period of 306 days. (g) Arrears of G.P.F. Gratuity and Group Insurance from 05.03.1996 to 28.02.1986. (h) Fixation of regular pension and its arrears along with the gratuity on the basis of salary payable to the petitioner under 6th pay revision. (1) Benefit of both time bound . promotions and its •arrears along with benefit of A.C.P. 2. Counsel for the respondents submitted that a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed and it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that claim of bonus was not tenable in law as the petitioner was suspended in the year 1998-99 because he issued driving license to L.T.T.E. Supremo Shri Prabhakaran vide S.T.C. Office order No. 2796 dated 15th June. 1997. Thereafter. departmental proceeding was initiated. Meanwhile the petitioner has filed two writ petitions against his suspension and no favourable order regarding suspension was obtained by the petitioner in these• two writ petitions. 3. During the period of suspension. the petitioner was absent without obtaining the permission of leave and during this period of unauthorised absence. he retired. 4. Looking to the counter-affidavit. it appears that all the admitted retiral benefits, such as Pension, G.P.F, Gratuity. Group insurance. as stated in the counter-affidavit. have already been paid to the petitioner and rest of the benefits are not tenable under law. 5. Having heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. it appears that (I) petitioner has been paid the following amounts: Benefit Amount 1. G.P.F Rs. 1.33.226/- + Rs.77,745/- 2. Gratuity Rs.1.35.851 /- 3. Group Insurance Rs. 57,913/- 4. Unutilised Earned Rs. 66.352/- Leave Thus. 5. Having heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. it appears that (I) petitioner has been paid the following amounts: Benefit Amount 1. G.P.F Rs. 1.33.226/- + Rs.77,745/- 2. Gratuity Rs.1.35.851 /- 3. Group Insurance Rs. 57,913/- 4. Unutilised Earned Rs. 66.352/- Leave Thus. legally payable amount has already been paid to the petitioner and so far as claim of bonus is concerned. it is stated in para 5 of the counter-affidavit that bonus for the period 1998-99 is not legally payable to the petitioner because' petitioner remained under suspension during this period on account of the fact that he had issued license to the LITE Supremo Shri Prabhakaran vide S.T.C. Order No.2796 dated 15th June. 1997. (II) It further appears that during the period of suspension. he was absent without obtaining any permission from the Head quarter and during this period of unauthorised absenteesm, the petitioner retired. It further appears that previously also a writ petitions. bearing W.P.(S) No. 4210 of 2001 as well as W.P.(S) No. 1646 of 2003 were preferred against the order of suspension and for payment of retiral dues. Thereafter. a contempt application. bearing Cont (Civil) Case No. 851 of 2004 was filed In these matters. it has been directed by this Court that the authority will take a decision. It appears that upon these orders. the aforesaid payment has been made under the various heads covering the retirement benefit. Therefore. it is apparent that orders passed in the earlier writ petition have now been complied with. (III) Further. looking to para 13 of the counter-affidavit. it appears that the petitioner could not clear departmental examination. which is the precondition for grant of benefits of Time bound promotion and A.C.P. and hence he was not given the benefit of Assured Career Progression. So far as salary for the period as stated in the writ petition is concerned. it is disputed as to whether the petitioner has worked during this period or not. 6. In view of these facts, as all the admitted and legally payable amount has already been paid to the petitioner, there is no substance in this writ petition. which is accordingly. dismissed. .