Akshoy Kumar Thakur vs State Of Jharkhand through the Secretory

Deepak Roshan, J

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

“1a. For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the part of the order as contained in order no. 33/2008 dated 01.03.2008; (Annexure-5) to the extant 'financial benefits for the period of removal from service of the petitioner has been ordered to be withheld' by the respondent authority in most arbitrary and illegal manner.

b.  For  the  issuance  of  writ  in  the  nature  of  Mandamus  commanding  upon the concerned respondents to grant 1st ACP to the petitioner in pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000, 2nd ACP  in pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and 3rd MACP in grade pay of Rs. 4800 in place of the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000, 5000-8000 and  grade  pay  of  Rs.  4600  respectively,  as  the  same  has  been  given  to  the petitioner wrongly vide memo no. 2430 (1st & 2nd ACP) and 2431 (3rd MACP) both memos are of dated 20.09.2017 (Annexure-6 & 6/1)

c. For issuance of  writ  in the nature of  Mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents to extend the monetary benefits of 1st ACP & 2nd ACP in  pay  scale  of  Rs.  5000-8000  & 5500-9000  respectively  and  benefits of 3rd MACP in grade pay of Rs. 4800.

d. For issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents for revision of pension of the petitioner and to  pay  the  arrears  incurred  thereupon  in  lieu  of  grant  of  1st ACP,  2nd ACP and 3rd  MACP in proper pay scale and grade pay respectively.

AND/OR

e. Pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the one hand, for the same and similar allegation co-employee, namely, Mr. Birendra Kumar Thakur was also dismissed but on the basis of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.  5896  of  2006, he  was  reinstated  and  was  paid  full  salary  and  on  the other hand, when the  petitioner was  reinstated  in  service vide  order  dated 01.03.2008 there was a specific direction that he will not get any salary during his period of dismissal.

Learned counsel for  the  State  submits  that the petitioner retired in the  year  2017  and  after  taking  all  retiral  benefits,  he  filed  the  instant  writ application in September, 2018 as such this case is an after thought as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

In reply to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though  the petitioner  has represented several times but no order was passed and forced with this situation, he filed the instant writ application. However, he submits that the instant writ application may be disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondent  that  on  the  ground  of  parity,  they  may  re-consider  the  part  of the order dated 01.03.2008.

Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  does  not  raise  objection if  the petitioner approaches the concerned respondent.

Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondent by filing a representation who shall pass an order in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such representation.