High CourtsSingle Bench

Kanak Tirkey vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 9 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 JH CK 0031

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S) No.3269 Of 2019

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 329 words

Heard Mr. Kumar Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ankit Kumar, A.C. to S.C. Mines I, learned counsel for the respondents.

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 moved before this Court for direction upon the respondents to consider and make payment of Leave Encashment for un-availed

leave, earned leave during service period with interest.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 05.01.1971 and retired on

31.05.1999. He submits that leave encashment has not been paid to the petitioner and she is entitled for the same in view of judgment of this Court in

the case of Mariyam Tirkey Versus State of Jharkhand & Others passed in W.P.(S) 506 of 2013. He further submits that she has already filed

representation but no decision has been taken as yet.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner may kindly be directed to file fresh representation before respondent no.3 who will

take decision in accordance with rules, regulations and guidelines and taking into account the judgment referred in the case of Mariyam Tirkey

(supra).

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file fresh representation along with the aforesaid judgment before respondent no.3 within a period of four

weeks. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent no.3 shall consider the case of the petitioner in the light of judgment

of this Court in the case of Mariyam Tirkey within a period of eight weeks thereafter. If the case of the petitioner is covered by that judgment, the

benefit must be accrued in favour of the petitioner.

With the above aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.