Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 365 (JHR)

Kalicharan Prasad etc. v. State of Jharkhand

2014-03-07

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. These petitioners are said to be Assistant Teachers in different Government Recognized Aided Minority High Schools in the district of Simdega, Gumla and Khunti. Details relating to the name of the school and date of retirement of the individual petitioners along with the writ petition number are being furnished herein below by way of chart, as furnished by the counsel for the petitioners. Case No. Name of the petitioner Name of the school Date of retirement WPS 497/2014 Kalicharan Prasad High School, Khutitoli, Simdega 31.07.2008 WPS 508/2014 Sarojini Toppo St. Xavier High School, Barwadih, Simdega 31.05.2013 WPS 512/2014 Satyanarayan St. Xavier High School, Barwadih, Simdega 31.10.2012 WPS 514/2014 Hilarius Toppo St. Xavier High School, Barwadih, Simdega 30.11.2012 WPS 518/2014 Tawhid Ansari Eidnaes High School, Takarma, Gumla 30.06.2013 WPS 654/2014 Rahil Purty St. Merry Girls High School, Murhu, Khunti 31.10.2006 WPS 1080/2014 Sr. Anjela Kullu Ursuline Convent Girls High School, Khunti 31.05.2008 3. Petitioners' grievance is in relation to non-payment of leave encashment amount on the earned leave outstanding against their name. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid claim of these petitioners were not being allowed on the basis of circulars dated 28th June 1983 and 20th February 1990, as per which, retired teachers of such minority schools are entitled to post retirement benefits except leave encashment in respect of those teachers whose services have been approved by the respondent authority of the State. However, it is submitted that the issue has now been settled in view of the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mariyam Tirkey vs. The State of Jharkhand and others [WPS No. 506/2013 and analogous cases] on 3rd January 2014. The said judgment is annexed as annexure-10 to the individual writ petitions. Accordingly, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners that these writ petitions may be disposed of in view of the judgment rendered as aforesaid by the learned Division Bench of this Court, by directing the respondents to pay the earned leave encashment amount to the petitioners as their representations before the respondents have not yet been redressed. 4. Accordingly, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners that these writ petitions may be disposed of in view of the judgment rendered as aforesaid by the learned Division Bench of this Court, by directing the respondents to pay the earned leave encashment amount to the petitioners as their representations before the respondents have not yet been redressed. 4. Counsel for the State does not dispute that the aforesaid issue relating to admissibility of the earned leave encashment amount to the teachers of Non-Government / Aided Minority School, has now been decided by the judgment rendered in the case of Mariyam Tirkey (Supra). 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, instead of keeping the writ petitions pending, and without expressing any comment on the merits of the individual cases, these writ petitions are being disposed of by allowing the individual petitioners to approach the District Education Officer of the concerned district from where these petitioners have retired from the Minority Schools in question, by making fresh representation duly supported with necessary facts and documents. On receipt of such representation, the concerned District Education Officer, Simdega, Gumla and Khunti, as applicable in the individual cases, would take a decision in relation to grant of leave encashment amount to the petitioners, in accordance with law, after due scrutiny of the relevant service records of the petitioners and also in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Mariyam Tirkey (Supra), within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the individual representation on behalf of the petitioners. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of by the common order. Petition disposed of.