Kamakhya Chatterjee vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.C. Roy, learned counsel for respondent-State and Ms. Surbhi, A.C. to Mr.

Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.

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. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to release the retiral benefits with arrears of payment to the petitioner.

Prayer has also been made to consider the case of the petitioner for the benefits under the ACP/MACP.

Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on 11.10.1974 and joined on 22.10.1974 on the

post of Regular Junior Engineer (Civil) in Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. The petitioner was transferred to Dhanbad in the year, 2000 before the

creation of Jharkhand State as per Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 and retired on 30.06.2009 from the post of Regular Junior Engineer (Civil) from

Dhanbad Division, Jharkhand State Housing Board.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has retired in the year, 2009 but till date except gratuity and leave encashment,

nothing has been paid to the petitioner. She submits that the petitioner has rendered 30 years of long unblemished service but the benefit of

ACP/MACP has not been provided to the petitioner. She refers to notification of May, 1992 particularly Clause-3 and submits that prior to attaining

the age of 50 years, if no departmental examination was being conducted in such cases, such employees shall be granted the benefit of ACP and

MACP. She submits that one Dilip Kumar Thakur has not accepted the charge from the petitioner that is why no liability can be fastened on the

petitioner. She submits that after retirement the petitioner has been called by the respondent-authorities. The petitioner has already filed representation

before the respondent no. 3, but no decision has been taken as yet.

Ms. Surbhi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 fairly submits that if the representation is there, the same can be considered by the

respondent no. 2 .

In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that the petitioner has already retired in the year, 2009, the writ petition is being disposed of with

direction to the petitioner to file fresh representation before respondent no.2 within two weeks from today. If such representation is filed within the

aforesaid period the respondent no.2 shall take decision in accordance with rules, regulations, guidelines and will pass a reasoned order within six

weeks thereafter. It goes without saying that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the benefit of the same shall be accrued in favour of

the petitioner within a period of further six weeks thereafter.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.