AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar, AC to GA-I appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State.
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.
I.A. No.7430 of 2019 has been filed for withdrawal of the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner no.2.
Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.2 is not pressing this writ petition and in that view of the
matter, the writ petition may be permitted to be withdrawn on behalf of the petitioner no.2.
He further submits that the writ petition is now confined to petitioner no.1 only.
Accordingly, the permission is accorded and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with regard to petitioner no.2.
I.A. No.7430 of 2019 stands allowed and disposed of.
W.P.(S) No.4136 of 2018
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction to pay the house rent allowance admissible to petitioner no.1 with effect from September,
2016 and prayer for interest is also made.
Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the employee of State of Jharkhand in the Department of
Welfare. The petitioner was allotted quarter of TISCO Q. No.L-04/203, Old Baradwari, Sakchi, Jamshedpur vide Annexure-1. He submits that the
petitioner has requested the respondents to pay house rent allowance to him but the same is not being paid. He submits that the petitioner has filed a
representation on 04.04.2018. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P.(S) No.6903 of 2002, W.P.(S) No.253 of 2015 and order dated 01.07.2009 [W.P.(S) No.703 of 2009] and analogous cases brought on
record by way of Annexure-3 series. He submits that the order has already been implemented by Annexure-4 series. He submits that on similar
footing the order may be passed.
The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the writ petition may be disposed of in that terms.
Taking note of the relevant facts and the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, the writ petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of the
judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.5110 of 2014, however, without making any comment on the merits of the case of
the petitioner so that the competent authority may take a decision on the claim of the petitioner within a reasonable time of 16 weeks from the date of
representation of the petitioner. The operative part of the judgment [WP(S) No.253 of 2015] is quoted hereinbelow:
“Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made, at this stage, without making any comment upon the petitioners' claim, this writ petition is being
disposed of by directing the respondent no.4 to take a decision on the petitioners' representations duly supported with all necessary facts and
documents and also enclosing a copy of this writ petition within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance
with law and after due verification of all relevant records. It is also observed that if respondent no.4 considers it proper to seek guideline from the
Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand on the issue, it would be open to him to seek such guidance from the said authority within the
aforesaid time and upon such request the Department of Finance could also convey its considered opinion in the matter keeping into regard the time
line, in which the decision is to be taken by the respondent no.4. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.â€
Accordingly, the writ petition [W.P.(S) No.4136 of 2018] stands disposed of in similar terms of the aforesaid judgment.
I.A. if any also stands disposed of.