Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 701 (JHR)

Abdul Rahim Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2012-05-04

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
Order No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. 3. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to pay the post retiral dues, pension etc. stating that he was retired on 31.08.2000 from the post of Lease Guard under the respondents. 4. From perusal of the counter affidavit, it appears that petitioner was appointed on 13.03.1962 on the temporary post of Lease Guard in Daltonganj South Division and was terminated on 28.05.1962. Thereafter, he was again appointed as Lease Guard on 18.01.1963 and his service was again terminated on 07.11.1963. On 3rd time, he was appointed on temporary post of Lease Guard on 03.12.1963 on which he had continued in service up to September, 1967 and thereafter, his service was terminated on 29.12.1967 vide office order no. 84 dated 05.01.1968 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Daltonganj South Division as because the petitioner was sent to jail in connection with criminal case and in this way petitioner had served as temporary lease guard for a period of 46 months only from the date of his appointment on 03.12.1963. It has further been stated in paragraph-9 to the counter affidavit that petitioner was involved in two criminal cases at Latehar. In one of which, he was acquitted on 09.10.1967 and in second criminal case the petitioner was sent to jail and later on acquitted on 21.04.1968, but he was not allowed to join his service after his termination on 29.12.1967. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this Hon'ble High Court on three occasions. One of writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2826 of 1993(R) in which Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, had disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 17.07.1998, which is read as under:- “At the very out set it can be said that as earlier it has been specifically ordered that no relief can be given in the writ jurisdiction, so the petitioner can very we pursue the matter regarding his reinstatement which is pending before Government according to the petitioner, but certainly no relief can be granted in this writ application.” 5. Finally the representation of the petitioner was disposed of vide letter no. 1350 dated 15.03.2007 and the decision of the Government has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. Finally the representation of the petitioner was disposed of vide letter no. 1350 dated 15.03.2007 and the decision of the Government has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 11E-5(3)/91-1760 dated 03.04.2007, which is at Annexure-D & D/1 to the counter affidavit respectively. It has been stated in paragraph-14 of the counter affidavit that petitioner had worked on temporary post of Lease Guard at Divisional Forest Office, Daltonganj, South Division for a period of 46 months only and he did not complete the period of pensionable service, therefore, he is not entitled in law for any relief. 6. From perusal of the aforesaid facts and upon hearing counsel for the respondents, it is clear that on the one hand the petitioner has worked on temporary basis as Lease Guard for the period of 46 months only i.e. from 03.12.1963 up to September, 1967 and, therefore, he is not entitled for any pensionary benefit, on the other hand the matter being old and stale, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter under extraordinary jurisdiction. 7. This writ petition stands dismissed.