Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 598 (JHR)

V. A. Abraham v. State of Jharkhand

2020-06-15

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through VC. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to count his period of service from 18.09.1979 to 07.10.1996 for the purpose calculating gratuity and the benefits of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (herein after to be referred as MACP) and also for payment of full pension by giving effect to 2nd and 3rd benefit of the MACP in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39,100 and grade pay of Rs. 7600/-. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated employees like the petitioner who were working in different Corporations & Boards; their services were sent on deputation to different Treasuries and finally they were absorbed by the Government of Jharkhand on certain terms and conditions and as such they moved before this Court by filing a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 1693 of 2012 for quashing the part of the resolution contained in memo No. 464/V dated 29.02.2012 issued by the Secretary, Finance Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby a decision was taken to appoint 61 Treasury Clerks who came there on deputation from different Boards/Corporations by way of absorption on certain terms and condition and also for a direction to the respondents to count their past service i.e. from the date of their initial appointment for their absorption. 4. Learned counsel further submits that this Court allowed the said writ application [W.P.(S) No. 1693 of 2012] filed by the employees by order dated 31.07.2013 by quashing the conditions mentioned in the impugned letters denying the past services of the said petitioners’ in calculating pensionable service, imposing the new pension scheme and also denying their legal dues/arrears/benefits of service period as contained in clauses ‘Anga’ ‘Cha’ and ‘Chh’ of the Annexure-11. This Court further directed the respondents to compute the pensionable service of those petitioners who have already retired from the date of initial appointment of such petitioners and not from the date of absorption and pay the retiral dues and other arrears accordingly. He further submits that the respondents were also directed to compute the past service of the petitioners for the purpose of giving ACP benefits/promotion and their other service dues and arrears and pay the same to the said petitioners within two month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 5. He further submits that the respondents were also directed to compute the past service of the petitioners for the purpose of giving ACP benefits/promotion and their other service dues and arrears and pay the same to the said petitioners within two month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in view of the law laid down by this Court the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner and count his period of service from 18.09.1979 to 07.10.1996 and pay the retiral dues and other arrears by giving ACP benefits / promotion and their other service dues accordingly. 6. Learned counsel for the State by referring para-20 of the counter-affidavit filed in the year, 2014 contended that against the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 1693 of 2012 an appeal was preferred by the State before this Court which is still pending as such, it would be incorrect to say that the issue had attained finality. 7. In reply to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said appeal i.e. L.P.A. No. 357 of 2013 which was filed by the State against the order dated 31.07.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1693 of 2012 has already been dismissed by this Court and the issue has attained finality and his limited prayer before this Court is to consider his case in the light of the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 1693 of 2012. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case particularly when the issue has already been decided and had attained finality, I do not think any reason why the case of the petitioner should not be guided by the law laid down by this Court in the case of similarly situated persons. In this view of the matter, I hereby dispose of the writ application by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent No.3-The Principal Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand raising his entire grievances. If any such representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with law, rules and regulations and law laid down by this Court in W.P.(S) No.1693 of 2012. 9. If any such representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with law, rules and regulations and law laid down by this Court in W.P.(S) No.1693 of 2012. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ application is disposed of.