High CourtsSingle Bench

Basant Mistry vs State of Jharkhand and others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 24 February 2009 · Citation: (2009) 121 FLR 791

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dabbiru Ganeshrao Patnaik, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S) No. 6128 of 2008
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 403 words

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Prayer in this writ application is for a direction to the Respondents to pay the Petitioner his entire retiral dues including

gratuity mount, pension, salary for 300 days of earned leave, payment of A.C.P. at the econd stage and other legally admissible dues without any

further delay.

2.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the espondent State.

3.

It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was employed as Assistant Plumber under the P.H.E. Department of the State

Government and while serving on his post at Simdega, he superannuated on 31.1.2008. In confirmation of this fact, learned Counsel invites

attention to Annexure-1 which is a letter dated 18.1.2008 issued by the Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D., Simdega (Respondent No. 4), addressed

to the Petitioner intimating therein that the Petitioner would superannuate on 31.1.2008 as per his date of birth and advising the Petitioner to submit

his pension papers in requisite proforma. Learned Counsel adds that in response, the Petitioner has already submitted the pension papers in the

requisite proforma but despite repeated representations, except the G.P.F amount, no other amount towards retiral dues has been paid to him.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent State submits that the representation file by the Petitioner, if any, is yet to be disposed of and the delay

appears to be on account of delay in obtaining the statements regarding the specific particulars for computation of the retiral dues.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances as also the letter of the Executive Engineer (Annexure-1), it does appear that the Petitioner had retired

from service under the Respondents and he is entitled to claim his retiral benefits since after his retirement on 31.1.2008. The Petitioner''s

representation has not been disposed of as yet by the concerned authorities of the Respondents.

6.

Considering the above, the Petitioner shall file a fresh representation before the Respondent No. 4 stating his claim and the grounds in support

thereof along with a copy of this order and within two months from the date of receipt of the representation, the Respondent No. 4 shall take

appropriate steps and pass necessary directions and ensure that all the admitted retiral dues legally payable to the Petitioner are duly released and

paid to him.

With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the Respondent State.