Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1084 (JHR)

Dhruba Chakroburty v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-05-14

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S. N. Pathak, J. – The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondent No.3 to make the payment of amount of leave encashment with interest. 2. The short facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner having requisite qualification for appointment as an Assistant Teacher was appointed on 22.08.1983 in Annada High School, Hazaribagh vide letter No. 283 dated 22.08.1983. After satisfactory service as Assistant Teacher, the petitioner was superannuated from his post on 30.04.2004. Subsequently, he submitted pension papers along with an application for payment of other retiral benefits before the respondent No.3 and on receipt of such application, the respondent No.3 sanctioned pension, gratuity, GPF amount of the petitioner except the amount of leave encashment. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner represented before the respondents, but no heed was paid on the representations and as such, petitioner has been constrained to move before this Court. 3. At the very outset, Mr. M.M. Pan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7259 of 2017 and Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Mariyam Tirkey Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 506/2013 and analogous cases vide order dated 03.01.2014 and now upheld up to the Hon''ble Apex Court vide Judgment dated 15.12.2014 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(s) 20606-20607/2014 and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by that orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 7259 of 2017, granting similar benefits to this petitioner also. 4. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents but learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that this case is fully covered by the order passed by this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 7259 of 2017 and in W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2013 & analogous cases. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid cases. However, if the case of the petitioner is same and similar to that of the aforesaid case only the same benefit shall be extended to him in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid cases. However, if the case of the petitioner is same and similar to that of the aforesaid case only the same benefit shall be extended to him in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid judicial pronouncement, the case of the present petitioner should also be considered. In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to take a decision in the matter of grant of leave encashment amount to the petitioner after due scrutiny of his relevant service records and in view of the Judgment rendered in the case of Mariyam Tirkey within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the petitioner is entitled for the said benefits, the same shall be extended to him, within a further period of two weeks. 6. Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed of.