Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 32 (JHR)

Kumari Chinta Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2020-01-09

S.N.PATHAK

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioners are ex-employees of Daltonganj Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., which has gone into liquidation. The petitioners have filed the present writ application for release of their salaries and other dues. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the ex-employees of the said Bank had filed a Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 264 of 2013, in which, this Court was informed by the respondents that the liquidation proceedings of the Bank were still under progress and is likely to be completed very shortly and after completion of the liquidation process, the retiral dues of the ex-employees of the Bank will be paid without any delay. This Court, accordingly, directed the respondents to conclude the liquidation proceeding as early as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks, so that the retiral dues along with the arrears of salary, if any, are paid to the ex-employees of the Bank within two weeks thereafter and accordingly, the said L.P.A. No. 264 of 2013 was disposed of vide order dated 18.05.2015, as contained in Annexure-5 of the writ application. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequently, the respondent-State had filed C.M.P. No. 187 of 2016 relating to the said L.P.A. No. 264 of 2013, for extension of the time for concluding the liquidation proceeding but the said C.M.P. was disposed of by order dated 05.08.2016, by a Division Bench of this Court, holding that the prayer of the District Co-operative Bank, Palamau, seeking extension of time for concluding the liquidation proceeding was on the fact of it, most unreasonable. This Court, however, granted another four weeks’ time to clear all the retiral dues along with the arrears of the salary to the petitioners of L.P.A. No. 264 of 2013. Learned counsel further argues that the present petitioners being the ex-employees of the said Bank are also entitled to the same benefits. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in absence of counter affidavit, he is not in a position to say as to why petitioners have not been given benefits of liquidation of the Bank. However, it is fairly contended that if petitioners are found entitled for the same or similar benefits as has been given to the similarly situated persons mentioned in Annexures-5 and 6, the same will be extended to the petitioners also. However, it is fairly contended that if petitioners are found entitled for the same or similar benefits as has been given to the similarly situated persons mentioned in Annexures-5 and 6, the same will be extended to the petitioners also. He further submits that some time may be allowed for passing appropriate order on pending representations of the petitioners. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of in terms of orders passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 264 of 2013 and C.M.P. No. 187 of 2016 with Cont. Case (C). No. 619 of 2013, as also the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5215 of 2015. The respondents are directed to consider cases of the petitioners in light of Annexures-5 and 6 herein and take a decision on their pending representations and pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipts / production of a copy of this order. It is made clear, if petitioners are found entitled for the same benefits, the same may be extended to them within a period of three weeks thereafter. It is also made clear that the petitioners shall be governed by any further order that may be passed in connection with L.P.A. No. 264 of 2013 and/or C.M.P. No. 187 of 2016, either by this Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.