Saheb Ram Mahto vs Home Department on 5 May, 2014

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Saheb Ram Mahto vs Home Department on 5 May, 2014

The petitioner is said to have participated in an exercise for recruitment of Constable for the District of Bokaro under Advertisement No. 3 of 2007 from the category of Home Guard being a candidate under OBC category. According to the petitioner, he got 12 points while the last selected candidate under OBC category fetched 13 points. Under the Right to Information Act, he has been informed that there are 37 vacant seats which have been carried over to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2010 for the recruitment of Constable for the same District. Therefore, according to the petitioner when under the same advertisement, candidates who have obtained less than 13 points have been appointed in other Districts, the respondents are not justified in refusing to lower down the cut of points from 13 for the appointment of the petitioner, when admittedly vacancies are existing. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that cadre of Constable is unified in the State.

Learned counsel for the respondent- State submits that exercise for selection has been carried either in the one District or a group of Districts under the Advertisement no. 3 of 2007 in which the petitioner participated and got 12 points. In that particular District in category of Home Guard & OBC category, amongst the persons who have been selected, the last selected candidate fetched 13 points. It is also stated that even as per the master chart prepared, petitioner has been placed at serial no. 304 in the merit list and there are 42 candidates who are senior to him i.e. having higher point who could have been appointed if vacant posts were to be filled up. In any case the said vacant posts have been carried over to Advertisement No. 1 of 2010, while the petitioner is seeking appointment under Advertisement No.3 of 2007 in which the whole process has come to an end. The petitioner, therefore, does not have a case for appointment -2- under the said advertisement no. 3 of 2007 and cannot allege any discrimination.

Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant materials on record, in the first place, the present writ petition appears to be suffering from delay and latches as the recruitment exercise was conducted under Advertisement No.3 of 2007 where after in 2010 another advertisement was issued by the respondents for recruitment to the same post of Constable and the writ petition has been filed in 2013 without any proper explanation for the delay. On the other hand, it appears that amongst the persons who got selected under OBC Home guard category, the cut of marks is 13 while the petitioner fetched only 12 points. As per the stand of the respondents, it is evident that if the said 37 vacant posts were to be filled up, petitioner's case could not have been considered as there were 42 candidates above him from his category. The petitioner, therefore cannot allege discrimination in the exercise for recruitment which was made District wise or for a group of Districts under the said advertisement and each Districts had separate Selection Board. The candidates were required to apply for a particular District in which they intended to participate and the petitioner also appeared and participated in the recruitment exercise in the District of Bokaro.

In such circumstances, on objective consideration of all the relevant grounds raised by the petitioner, no case is made out by the petitioner for interference in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.




                                                                (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A. Mohanty
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 W.P.(S) No. 2042 of 2013
             Md. Iqbal Khan                    .......            Petitioner
                                        Versus
             Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Ors.           ........ Respondents
                                               ----------
             CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
             For the Petitioner         : Mr. Sunil Kumar
             For the Respondents        : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari

 03/05.05.2014           Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Bihar

State Electricity Board(B.S.E.B) through its Secretary as respondent no.4 in the instant writ petition as the petitioner is seeking arrears after having retired on 31.1.2000 under the erstwhile B.S.E.B from the post of Electrical Executive Engineer. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall carry out necessary correction in the array of parties in the writ petition in red ink. He shall serve a copy of the writ petition and the pleadings upon the learned counsel for the respondent- B.S.E.B and receipt thereof be filed in the Registry by Friday i.e 9.5.2014.

Let the name of counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- B.S.E.B be reflected in the cause list, thereafter.

List this case after 2 weeks.


                                                                         (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A. Mohanty
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 W.P.(S) No. 1899 of 2013
             Mungia Kamim                            .......                Petitioner
                                      Versus
             M/s Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization & Ors.        ........ Respondents
                                            ----------
             CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
             For the Petitioner             : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha
             For the Respondents(CCL)       : M/s Amit Kr. Das & Arvind Kumar
             For the Respondent(CMPF)       : Mr. L.C.N.Shahdeo


 08/05.05.2014            Heard counsel for the parties.

The petitioner's simple claim is that an arrear amounting to Rs. 60,112/- as family pension with statutory interest has not been paid by the respondents to her till date in lieu of her husband. The petitioner's husband was an employee of the C.C.L. working as piece rated worker in Tapin North Colliery in the District of Ramgarh and erstwhile District of Hazaribag.

Learned counsel for the respondent, C.M.P.F submits that the claim of the petitioner is under process and likely to be settled in the next month.

In view of such submission made by learned counsel for the respondent- C.M.P.F, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to settle the admissible claim of the petitioner within 4 weeks with statutory interest.

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6795 of 2012 Sayed Badrul Alam & others ....... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ........ Respondents

----------

     CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
     For the Petitioner             : Mr. Bishram Bhagat
     For the Respondents            : J.C. to G.P.IV

05/05.05.2014     Heard counsel for the parties.

There are 8 petitioners in the present writ application who are said to be either pensioner or family pension holders of Teachers who were serving in various schools taken over w.e.f. 1971 vide letter no. 1614 dated 14.3.1973. According to them as per the decision contained at Annexure-1, which is the circular of the Education Department dated 14.3.1973 , the deduction made from the salary of the said teachers for the period from 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973 were decided to be deposited in the G.P.F account. As per the petitioners, the District Superintendent of Education has communicated the District Provident Fund Officer, Lohardaga through letter dated 24.4.2006 that the deposits in the G.P.F accounts D.T.R.N for the period from December 1976 have been made through Challan No. 36 dated 27.4.2000 totaling a sum of Rs. 53,64,409/- containing the interest in respect of such G.P.F amount of the teachers from their appointment date till November, 1976. According to the petitioners they are entitled to the G.P.F amount as per the G.P.F Rules along with interest which was deposited for the period from 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973, which has not been paid till date. They are said to have made representation before the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga but their grievances have remained unredressed.

As per the counsel for the respondents an affidavit has been filed by the District Provident Fund Officer, Lohardaga which states that details of the deduction in respect of such persons have not been received from the office of District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga or Ranchi. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 6, District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga.

Having heard counsel for the parties, in the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon the merit of the claim of the petitioners, -2- the writ petition is disposed of by allowing liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent no.6, District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga by filing a fresh individual representation duly supported with necessary facts and documents. The respondent no.6, District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga shall consider the individual petitioner's claim and if the same are found to be justified on the basis of records and deduction made for the period in question, necessary particulars thereof be sent to the office of respondent no.5, District Provident Fund Officer, Lohardaga for processing and settlement of the petitioners' claim within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of individual representation.

Needless to say that if such statement is forwarded to the respondent no.5, District Provident Fund Officer, Lohardaga, he in turn shall examine the same and if the claim of the individual petitioners are found to be genuine and legally admissible, the amount in question shall be disbursed in their favour upon due identification within a period 4 weeks, thereafter along with statutory interest.

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.




                                                                (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A. Mohanty
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  W.P.(S) No. 2218 of 2014
             Sakal Singh                                       .......                 Petitioner
                                         Versus
             Union of India & Ors.                                           ........ Respondents
                                          ----------
             CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
             For the Petitioner           : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi
             For the Respondents          : Mr. Ashok Singh, C.G.C

 02/05.05.2014             Heard counsel for the parties.

By Annexure-1, the service order No. 232/14 dated 7.4.2014, the petitioner has been transferred from East Zone i.e. present place of posting as Constable at Bhawanthpur under the Respondent- C.I.S.F to North East Sector. The petitioner after representing vide Annexure-2 dated 11.4.2014 for reconsideration of his transfer has approached this Court straightway without waiting for any decision by the respondents. The notification of transfer indicates that any aggrieved individual may make representation before 31.5.2014 to the Unit Commander which may be forwarded to the AIG( Establishment). As per Annexure-1 the date of relieving by Units is 31.5.2014, joining at the transferred place of posting is 30.6.2014 and compliance of IZT-14 to be submitted to FHQ by Sector IsG is 15.7.2014. In the aforesaid circumstance, alternate dispute redressal mechanism is provided by the respondents themselves against the impugned notification to the affected employee.

Learned counsel for the respondent has also stated on instruction that petitioner's representation is under consideration but he has straightway moved this Court, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

In the aforesaid state of facts, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned notification of transfer as the petitioner has already made representation before the concerned respondents which is under consideration. Dependant upon decision taken on the petitioner's representation, if he has any cause of action, he is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.


                                                                          (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A. Mohanty
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                W.P.(S) No. 2330 of 2014
             Shivmuni Ram                                  .......                Petitioner
                                      Versus
             The State of Jharkhand & Ors.                      ........ Respondents
                                            ----------
             CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
             For the Petitioner             : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar
             For the Respondents            : J.C. to S.C.III

 02/05.05.2014           The petitioner has challenged the order of his suspension contained in

memo no.7763(s) dated 27.8.2013(Annexure-1) passed by the Engineer-in- Chief, Road Construction Department. The petitioner complain is that neither he is being paid the subsistence allowance nor the enquiry is being proceeded because of frequent change of Enquiry Officer.

The respondents are therefore allowed 4 weeks time to seeks instruction and file affidavit. If the subsistence allowance is not paid to the petitioner, the same be paid within the aforesaid time.

List this case, thereafter.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court