Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 78 (JHR)

Bharat Choudhary v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-01-10

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are retired teacher of minority Middle School, details of the individual are being shown in the chart given below: Sl. No. Name of the petitioner/Teacher Date of appointment Date of Retirement Name of the school 1. Bharat Choudhary 04.09.1973 31.01.2012 Hindustan Mitra Mandal Middle School 2. Rajeshwar Choudhary 01.02.1980 30.04.2013 Hindustan Mitra Mandal Middle School 3. Chandeshwar Prasad Yadav 23.03.1981 30.04.2013 Hindustan Mitra Mandal Middle School 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the school in question is Aided Minority Schools and all expenses towards payment of salary and retirement benefits of the school employees has been funded by the State Government from the public exchequer. The petitioners are also getting pension on the basis of the pension payment order issued by the office of the Accountant General. 4. In the present writ application, the grievance of the petitioners is in relation to non-payment of leave encashment amount on the earned leave outstanding against them. They have also stated that other post retiral dues have already been paid and that salary and post retirement benefit have been paid out of grant-in-aid provided by the State Government. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though, the claim of the petitioners was resisted earlier by the respondent-State Government, but 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 v. The State of Jharkhand & others in W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2013 and analogous cases dated 3rd January, 2014 which has also been reported in 2014 (1) JBCJ 465 and now upheld up to the Hon''ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 15.12.2014 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s) 20606-20607/2014. According to the petitioners, the writ petition may be disposed of in view of the judgment rendered as aforesaid by the learned Division Bench and affirmed up to the Hon''ble Supreme Court, by directing the respondents to pay the earned leave encashment amount to the petitioners. 6. According to the petitioners, the writ petition may be disposed of in view of the judgment rendered as aforesaid by the learned Division Bench and affirmed up to the Hon''ble Supreme Court, by directing the respondents to pay the earned leave encashment amount to the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-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) and affirmed up to the Hon''ble Supreme Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in such circumstances, the writ petition is being disposed of by directing the respondent no. 3, District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, to take a decision in the matter of grant of leave encashment amount to the petitioners after due scrutiny of their relevant service records and 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 representation on behalf of the petitioners. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.