Renu Devi vs State of Jharkhand and another

R.R. Prasad, J. - The petitioner had filed a Writ Application bearing W.P.(S) No. 1290 of 2011, wherein claim of death-cum-retiral dues had been put forth.

The said writ application was disposed of in the following terms:-

"Since the claim is still to be determined by the Authority, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation raising all his claim which have been claimed in this writ application, before the Managing Director, MADA, respondent No. 2, along with a copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. On receipt of such representation, the respondent No. 2 shall be taking decision in respect of claims made by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks thereafter".

Pursuant to that, representation was filed, upon which an order was passed on 21.10.2013 whereby admissible claim of the petitioner was found to be of Rs.6,20,538/- and as against that, a sum of Rs.1 lakh was given in one go and for the rest of the amount, an order was passed that Rs. 50,000/- would be paid very month.

According to Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, entire payment has been made to the petitioner.

However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the benefit of 6th Pay Revision Commission and A.C.P. have not been given to the petitioner.

Upon which, Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the MADA submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of 6th Pay Revision Commission''s recommendation and thereby, the case of the petitioner was never placed before the Screening Committee with respect to grant of ACP and to this effect, notice has been sent to the petitioner on 09.01.2014 itself.

Since, certain claim has been denied to the petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to take legal recourse.

Under the circumstances, this contempt proceeding is dropped.