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
17 paragraphs · 275 wordsMinor defects are ignored.
Heard Mr. Someshwar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, A.C. to Mr. Mahavir Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for
respondents-JMADA.
This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due
to COVID-19 pandemic.
The petitioner, who is son of legal heirs of deceased employee has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents for payment of retiral
dues such as, benefit of ACP, difference amount of gratuity, difference amount of Group Insurance, arrears of Dearness Allowance, difference of
Provident Fund amount, difference amount of time bound promotion, benefit of 6th Pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006 till the date of his retirement and
amount of interest over the above counts.
Mr. Someshwar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner has moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No.1385 of 2015.
He submits that the petitioner is son of deceased employee Pradip Dom who died on 18.07.2014.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, A.C. to Mr. Mahavir Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for respondents-JMADA submits that the petitioner has not filed
objection in view of reasoned order wherein he was directed to file the objection within 15 days.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file fresh representation before respondent no.2 with all the credentials within three weeks. If such
representation is filed within the aforesaid period the respondents-JMADA will take decision in accordance with rules, regulations, guidelines and the
schemes framed in this regard by JMADA within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.