Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1767 (JHR)

Bindeshwar Lal v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-10-10

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. - Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to pay the arrears as well as current salary and other benefits and further prayer has also been made to pay the retiral benefits due to the petitioner with interest @12% per annum from the due date of actual payment. Factual Matrix: 2. Petitioner was appointed in the year 1974 as a clerk at Musabani Anchal in the district of Singhbhum. In May, 1979 petitioner was transferred to Ichagarh Block. In July, 1984 he was again transferred to Jhinkpani circle and thereafter he was transferred to several places including Raj Nagar and other places in the district of Singhbhum. Accordingly the petitioner made representation to the Circle Officer, Jhinkpani and also requested the Respondent No. 7 for making available the service book to the current post of posting but no action was taken. Petitioner superannuated on 31.10.2014. It is specific case of the petitioner that due to nonavailability of the service book the petitioner did not get benefits of 6th Pay Revision Committee and other benefits and at present petitioner was getting lowest scale of the clerk. Besides that the petitioner has not been paid the arrears of salary neither the retiral benefits. The petitioner approached the respondent-authorities and filed several representations but no heed was paid. It was only when a direction was given by this Hon''ble Court, the respondents have paid the arrears of salary to the petitioner. Now the only grievance of the petitioner is regarding the retiral benefits as such not a single penny has been paid in the heads of retiral benefits and as such this writ petition has been filed. 3. Mrs. Gouri Debi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the arrears of the salary was paid to the petitioner after order of this court, still the retiral benefits has not been extended to the petitioner who retired on 30.10.2014. The learned counsel submits that retiral benefits is the right of the petitioner, yet he is made to suffer at the hands of the respondents and he is running from pillar to post to get his retiral dues. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. The learned counsel submits that retiral benefits is the right of the petitioner, yet he is made to suffer at the hands of the respondents and he is running from pillar to post to get his retiral dues. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, J.C. to G.P. VI submits that the respondents have already paid the arrears of salary to the petitioner and though nothing has been brought on record regarding G.P.F. and G.I.S. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said amount has also been paid to the petitioner. Regarding the other retiral benefits, the respondents are taking initiative to pay the benefits but as the petitioner has not submitted the required documents and as such the benefits have not been extended to him. 5. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties this court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration, the petitioner has knocked the door of this court for payment of his retiral benefits. The petitioner superannuated in the year 2014 itself. We are now in 2017, petitioner has been made to suffer at the hands of the respondents by not giving his rightful claim of retiral benefits, pension etc. It has been held in catena of decisions of the Hon''ble Court as well as the Hon''ble Apex Court that retiral benefits is the right of the employee. It is not the bounty at the hands of the respondents to be given to the employees. In view of the judicial pronouncements and in view of the facts that petitioner has been made to suffer for the last three years and has to run from pillar to post to get his rightful claim, I direct the respondents, particularly respondent No. 5 to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with an interest of 15% per annum as it was the fault of the respondents by not giving retiral benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner is also directed to hand over any documents which is required by the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The petitioner is also directed to hand over any documents which is required by the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The entire retiral benefits will be given to the petitioner after considering 5th and 6th Pay revision, if the petitioner is found so entitled in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.