Rajeev Ranjan Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 January, 2020

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Rajeev Ranjan Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 January, 2020

Bench: S.N. Pathak

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 W.P.(S) No. 2510 of 2018
Rajeev Ranjan Mishra                         ...     ...   Petitioner
                            Versus
1.    The State of Jharkhand
2.    The Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development &
Social Security, Jharkhand.
3.    The Director, Social Security, government Jharkhand, Ranchi.
(Jharkhand).
4.    The Asst., director-in-Charge, Social Security Cell, P.O.+P.S.-
Jamtara, District-Jamtara, (Jharkhand).
5.    The Deputy Commissioner Jamtara, P.O.+P.S.-Jamtara,
District-Jamtara,(Jharkahnd).            ...     ...     Respondents
                                --------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
                        --------
For the Petitioner      : Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Dubey, Advocate
                           Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate
                                --------
Order No.07: Dated: 13 January, 2020
                         th


Per Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.:

1. The sole prayer of the petitioner is regarding voluntary retirement.

2. The factual matrix of this case is that the petitioner was appointed on 16.02.1982 as a Tankan (Lipik). The petitioner made an application for voluntary retirement and the same was accepted by the respondent authorities and averment to that effect has been made in paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit.

3. Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Dubey assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner very fairly submits that application for voluntary retirement has been accepted by the respondent-authorities and consequent to the said acceptance 11 months' salary as well as Group Insurance and G.P.F. amount has already been disbursed. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non- payment of leave encashment, gratuity and non-fixation of pension. It has been further argued that the respondents be directed to pay the said amount within the stipulated period.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has already been given 11 months' salary, Group Insurance and G.P.F. So far as the payment of leave encashment, gratuity and pension amount are concerned, the same shall be paid to the petitioner if a fresh representation is preferred by the petitioner. The same shall be considered in accordance with law and if the petitioner is found entitled for claimed amount in pursuant to the voluntary retirement, the same shall be paid to him within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. Be that as it may, since it is admitted that the application for voluntary retirement has been accepted by the respondent authorities and the petitioner has already received 11 months' salary, Group Insurance and G.P.F. amount. The due amount of leave encashment, gratuity and pension, if the petitioner is found entitled in accordance with law same shall be disbursed within a period of three weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

7. Pending I.As. are dismissed as not pressed.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) MM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court