Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 28 (JHR)

Dilip Kumar Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2018-01-04

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to give the benefits of time bond promotion under earlier pay revision and benefits of ACP/MACP under VI Pay Revision. Further prayer has been made to recalculate the pension and other retrial dues of the petitioner after giving above benefits and to pay the due amount with statutory interest. 2. The petitioner, on the basis of recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission, was appointed on 05.04.1978 as Circle Inspector-cum-Kanoongo. The services of the petitioner and several other persons were confirmed vide Memo No. 229, dated 13.02.1999 with effect from 05.04.1980 as Circle Inspector-cum-Kanoongo. Thereafter, several other Circle Inspectors-cum-Kanoongo were promoted to the post of Asst. Settlement Officer. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court bearing W.P.(S) No. 1480 of 2002 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 05.02.2004 with a direction to the State of Jharkhand to make all endeavour to complete all the process regarding issuance of order for promotion to the posts of Asst. Settlement Officer as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months. In spite of above, the respondents failed to issue any order of promotion to the petitioner, thereafter, he preferred a Cont. Application being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1218 of 2006, however, the said Cont. was finally dropped on 17.08.2007. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed representation before the respondents for compliance of the orders of the writ petition as well as cont. application but the respondents authorities did not comply the order. It is further stated that in view of the cont. application, filed by the petitioner, the respondents put the petitioner under suspension and initiated a departmental proceeding against him on the basis of alleged compliant made by Dy. Commissioner, Chatra. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges and his suspension was also revoked and the petitioner was ordered to join in the office of Circle Officer, Simariya Circle, Chatra and the order to that effect was issued by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms vide Memo No. 2636 dated 29.07.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted his joining on 01.08.2011 in the office of Anchal Adhikari, Simariya, Chatra. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted his joining on 01.08.2011 in the office of Anchal Adhikari, Simariya, Chatra. Later on, the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms issued an order as contained in Memo No. 3776 dated 10.12.2011 declaring therein, period of suspension of the petitioner from 01.04.2008 to 31.07.2011 to be treated as on duty. As the petitioner was retired from the services on 31.08.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Circle Inspector-cum-Kanoongo, Simariya, Chatra, but he was denied the benefits of any promotion/financial up-gradation during his entire service tenure. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that as he was fully exonerated in the Departmental Proceeding, which was also admitted by the respondents in their counter-affidavit, he is fully entitled for financial up-gradation and other benefits accrued to him during his service tenure and his pension should also be re-fixed and revised accordingly. As the such benefits were extended to him neither the pension was revised nor the representation of the petitioner was considered, the petitioner was constrained to knock the door of this Court. 5. Mr. Vijoy Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Miss. Ragini Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a retired employee is being harassed at the hands of respondents-authorities though he has been fully exonerated in the departmental proceeding and even in the order of revocation of suspension, it has been specifically mentioned that period of suspension of the petitioner from 01.04.2008 to 31.07.2011 shall be treated as on duty. But, neither the financial benefits has been extended to him nor the pension has been re-fixed and revised after revision of the pensionary benefits. It is further stated that though the petitioner had preferred representation in the year, 2015 after his retirement way back in the year, 2011 but, no step has been taken as yet by the respondents for extending the benefits of financial up-gradation. Therefore, a direction may be given to the respondents to calculate the entire amount for which the petitioner is found entitled and to re-fix the pension in revised pay-scale after calculating the financial up-gradation, which has accrued to him during his service tenure. 6. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Therefore, a direction may be given to the respondents to calculate the entire amount for which the petitioner is found entitled and to re-fix the pension in revised pay-scale after calculating the financial up-gradation, which has accrued to him during his service tenure. 6. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. D.K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that in the counter-affidavit itself, it is mentioned that the petitioner has been fully exonerated from the charges levelled against him and the petitioner has already retired in the year 2011 itself. Further it appears that the petitioner has preferred a representation by speed post but it is clear that his representation was in hands of the respondents. Suffice, it would be if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation, mentioning all the details and upon receipt of such representation it would be convenient for the respondents also to go through the representation and calculate the amount for which the petitioner is entitled. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner was fully exonerated in the Departmental Proceeding. The petitioner has already suffered by filing several writ petitions before this Court and has also preferred cont application, however, the order of the Court was never complied. A retired employee was made to suffer for no wrong on his part and had to run from pillar to post to get his legally admissible dues but till date, he has not been extended such benefits, which is bad in eyes of law. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules and guidelines, I hereby direct the respondent No. 1, Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi to get the entire admissible amount calculated on account of financial up-gradation for which the petitioner is entitled in accordance with law and if the petitioner is found entitled for the same, the entire benefits may be extended to the petitioner and his pension and pensionary benefits should also be revised accordingly with consequential benefits. 9. Let it be made clear that entire exercise be completed, within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.