Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 653 (JHR)

Satyendra Rajak v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-03-19

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – Once again an incomplete affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State. This time the respondent department is the Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change. This is not a case in isolation; in several writ petitions filed in this Court seeking a direction for payment of post-retiral benefits this Court has observed that incomplete and sometimes misleading affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent-State. In some of the writ petitions this Court has already taken note of this state of affairs. 2. Prayer in the writ petition is for grant of ACP/MACP benefits and for payment of pension and other post-retiral benefits to the petitioner. 3. On payment of pension and post-retiral benefits, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these benefits have been paid to the petitioner. 4. On the claim of ACP/MACP benefits, the respondents have pleaded that the petitioner who was promoted to the post of Range Forest Officer on 31.12.1990 is not entitled for 1st ACP benefits. It is stated that proposal for grant of 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP to the petitioner is under consideration before the competent authority. The competent authority to take a decision on ACP/MACP benefits is the District Establishment Committee, however, it is not pleaded by the respondents within what time a decision shall be taken on grant of ACP/MACP benefits to the petitioner and other employees as averred in paragraph no.21 of the counter-affidavit. 5. Now, it appears that an expedition in search of some lacuna in the employment of the petitioner, and if it is not found, to dig in some financial irregularity was undertaken by the department. In paragraph no.8 of its counter-affidavit, the respondents have pleaded that, "some material financial irregularities to the tune of Rs.8.779131 lacs (absolutely absurd figure) were committed by the petitioner for which departmental proceeding proposal has been sent to the competent authority." It is pertinent to record that the petitioner has superannuated from service on 31.05.2015. The reason why this Court is recording these facts is, only to indicate that either there are undetected financial irregularities in the department, which, when an employee after his superannuation approaches the Court is detected, or the story of financial irregularity committed by the ex-employees is a cooked-up story. 6. The reason why this Court is recording these facts is, only to indicate that either there are undetected financial irregularities in the department, which, when an employee after his superannuation approaches the Court is detected, or the story of financial irregularity committed by the ex-employees is a cooked-up story. 6. Leaving aside the aforesaid issue, in view of the stand taken by the respondent-State in its counter-affidavit that proposal for grant of 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP to the petitioner is under consideration of the competent authority, who shall take into consideration the aforesaid alleged financial irregularity committed by the petitioner, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to take a decision in the matter, within three months. 7. Proceeding in this case shall be attached to W.P.(S) No. 2716 of 2016 for issuing appropriate directions on payment of post-retiral benefits to the employees.