High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 06 JH CK 0011

Giribala Devi vs Central Coalfields Limited

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 12 June 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ananda Sen
RESULT
Disposed
CASE NUMBER
198 of 2017

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

34 paragraphs · 367 words
1.

Heard the parties.

2.

The petitioner was employed as Junior Engineer under Mukhya

Mantri Kisan Khushali Yojna (MMKKY), which was a Scheme floated by the

Ministry of Agriculture and Sugarcane, Government of Jharkhand. At the

initial stage, the petitioner was being paid an honorarium of Rs. 5500/-

per month, which was enhanced to Rs. 15000/- per month w.e.f.

04.03.2011. The said Scheme came to an end w.e.f. June, 2014. The claim

of the petitioner is that he had worked till May, 2014, but he has not been

paid his honorarium from May, 2013 till May, 2014, not even the initial

amount of Rs. 5500/- per month. He submits that he was entitled to get

honorarium of Rs. 15,000/- per month during the said period. He further

submits that the honorarium was increased from Rs. 5500/- per month to

Rs. 15,000/- per month w.e.f. 04.03.2011 but till date the same has also

not been paid to him from March, 2011 to April, 2013. He further submits

that he made several representations before the Director, Agriculture,

Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent no. 3), but no order has

been passed on his representations.

3.

Learned JC to GP-IV submits that the grievance of the petitioner

will be looked into and appropriate order would be passed if the petitioner

files a fresh representation before the Director, Agriculture, Govt. of

Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent no. 3).

4.

In view of the said submission, the petitioner is directed to file a

fresh representation, stating in detail about his claim before respondent

no. 3 within two weeks from today. On receipt of such representation, the

Director, Agriculture (Respondent No. 3) shall pass an appropriate

reasoned order on the same within a period of four weeks thereafter. He

shall also take into consideration whether the petitioner has actually

worked during the said period. If the petitioner has worked for the said

period, he is entitled to get the admissible honorarium for the period

which he actually worked.

5.

It is made clear that if any amount is found payable to the

petitioner, the same must be paid to him within the said period.

6.

With this observation and direction, this writ application stands

disposed of.