Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1437 (JHR)

Bijay Kishore Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2012-09-20

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been preferred for directing the respondents to pay all the retirement dues of the petitioner, who retired as Assistant of Civil Court, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa on 30th June, 2009, including G.P.F. amount;, Gratuity, Group Insurance Savings; Leave Encashment; Pension and difference of salary as per 6th Pay Revision Commission's recommendation. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Lower Division Assistant in Civil Court on 07.06.1975 and thereafter was promoted to Junior Selection Grade on 10th June, 1985. His services were confirmed on 18.04.1998 and he was promoted to Senior Selection Grade and posted as Office Superintendent on 11.01.1999. By letter dated 8th June, 2009, he was informed that he would retire on 30th June, 2009. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite submitting all relevant documents through his representations dated 5.8.2009 and 17.6.2009 to the District Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa for payment of retiral benefits, but none of the aforesaid post retirement dues have yet been paid to him, leaving him with no alternative then to move this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the State-Respondents, on the other hand, submits on the basis of instruction and averments made in the counter affidavit that the complete statement of Group Insurance Service has not been provided by the petitioner to the concerned office of District Judge, Chaibasa; the Pension Papers are incomplete and unless his period of absence from duty are regularized, the same cannot be processed. It is also submitted that the G.P.F. deductions and final order has already been received from G.P.F. office and is ready for payment. Further Leave Encashment amount cannot be calculated unless his absence from duty is not regularized. 5. From submission of the parties and the relevant averment brought on record, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner should first be considered and determined by the competent authority. Therefore, without getting into the merits of the case, the petitioner is allowed liberty to approach the concerned Respondent no.2, District Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, for redressal of his grievances relating to Post Retirement Dues together with all necessary facts and documents and required papers within a period of 4 weeks. Therefore, without getting into the merits of the case, the petitioner is allowed liberty to approach the concerned Respondent no.2, District Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, for redressal of his grievances relating to Post Retirement Dues together with all necessary facts and documents and required papers within a period of 4 weeks. However, so far as the question of Leave Encashment amount is concerned, the petitioner may also approach the competent authority in the said representation for regularization of his leave with all supporting facts and documents. If such a representation is filed before the respondent no.2, District Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, he shall consider the same, in accordance with law, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 12 weeks thereafter, which should be communicated to the petitioner as well. Needles to say that if the claim of the petitioner is found genuine and legally admissible, the same should be paid within a period of 8 weeks thereafter. With the aforesaid observations/direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.