Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Kumar Tripathy vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited ... on 10 February, 2022
Author: S. N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 817 of 2021
1. Santosh Kumar Tripathy
2. Bijay Kumar Leyangi
3. Devendra Prasad Singh
4. Kashi Nath Singh ..... ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Chairman, Ranchi.
2. The Secretary, Jharkhand Bijli Vitram Nigam Limited, Ranchi.
3. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer,
Jharkhand Bijli Vitram Nigam Limited, Jamshedpur ........ Respondents.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK (Through Video Conferencing)
------
For the Petitioner : Ms. Shatakshi, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to AG
-----
2/ 10.02.2022 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners have knocked the door of this Court for grant of benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) on completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of service, as has been granted to similarly situated retired employees with all consequential benefits.
3. The case of the petitioners lies in a narrow compass. The petitioners were appointed on 24.9.1968, 19.2.1980, 30.4.1973 and 4.3.1980 respectively and after working for several years to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities, they superannuated with effect from 31.3.2009, 30.6.2011 and 31.1.2012 respectively. It is the specific case of the petitioners that for grant of benefit of MACP, the cases of the petitioners were considered and placed before a duly constituted Committee, which also recommended on 14.9.2017 to grant them the benefits of MACP. However, in spite of the recommendations of duly constituted Committee till date, the petitioners have not been granted the benefit of MACP and hence, this writ petition.
4. Ms. Shatakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assiduously argues that the petitioners are entitled for benefits of MACP. She further submits that their cases were considered by a duly constituted Committee and even it was recommended by the said Committee for grant of benefits under MACP scheme, but the respondent authorities have arbitrarily and illegally not considered the case of the petitioners and have given a complete go-bye to the recommendation of the duly constituted Committee. Learned counsel further argues that since the petitioners have already been retired, their cases may not be 2. considered for MACP by the respondents. Learned counsel submits that the action of the respondents is discriminatory as similarly situated persons have already been extended the benefits of MACP.
5. Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, representing the State vehemently opposes the contention of the petitioners and submits that after retirement of the petitioners, they have knocked the door of this Court for grant of MACP benefits, and as such, the same is not maintainable itself on the ground of delay and laches as after several years of retirement, they have approached this Court for grant of MACP benefits. However, it has fairly been submitted that if the petitioners prefer a fresh representation before the respondents, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and a reasoned order shall be passed.
6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submission of the parties across the Bar, this Court is of the considered view that since already there was a recommendation of the duly constituted Committee for granting the benefits of MACP as back as on 14.9.2017 itself, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners and if the cases of the petitioners are found to be fit, the benefits of MACP shall be extended to them. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to file a representation before the respondent concerned within a period of three weeks, and thereafter, the respondents shall consider the same and pass a reasoned / speaking order, in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
7. Needless to say that if the petitioners are found entitled for grant of MACP benefits, the same shall be extended to them within a further period of three weeks. If the case of petitioners is turned down for one or other reasons, same shall be communicated to them, within aforesaid period of three weeks.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) R.Kr.