Jharkhand High Court
Ram Lakhan Singh No-Ii vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 16 September, 2009
Author: D.G.R. Patnaik
Bench: D.G.R. Patnaik
IN THE HIGHT COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 25 of 2007
---
Ram Lakhan Singh No. II Petitioner
Versus
1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Dhurwa, Ranchi
2. The Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Dhurwa, Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Dhurwa, Ranchi
4. Dy. Director of Accounts (HQ), Jharkhand State Electricity Board,
Dhurwa, Ranchi
5. Administrator (GPF Trustee), Jharkhand State Electricity Board,
Dhurwa, Ranchi
6. Dy. Director of Accounts (Section), Jharkhand State Electricity Board,
Dhurwa, Ranchi
7. Director of Accounts (T/B), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Dhurwa,
Ranchi
8. The G.M.-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Deoghar
9. Accounts Officer, Electric Supply Circle, Deoghar
10. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Giridih Respondents
---
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Krishna, Advocate
----
7. 16.09.2009In his reply to the counter-affidavit, the petitioner has acknowledged that during the pendency of this writ application, payment towards the retiral dues have been made by the respondents under the various Heads specified in para-4 of the rejoinder. However, the petitioner's grievance survives on account of non- payment of the dues to which the petitioner is entitled, as specified in para-5 of the rejoinder.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would want to explain that the respondents have illegally deducted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the petitioner's gratuity and likewise, have also made deduction of the payable pension amount, that too, without any prior notice to the petitioner and without any inquiry and long after the date of the petitioner's retirement. Such acts of the respondents, according to the learned counsel, is totally illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
3. Counsel for the respondents would want to inform that the major portion of the petitioner's retiral dues have been released and paid to him. As regards the dispute concerning deduction made from the payable gratuity amount and pension, learned counsel submits that the grievance of the petitioner has to be looked into in terms of the objection taken by him.
4. There appears some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, highlighting the grounds of objection taken against the deduction of amounts from his payable gratuity and pension by the respondents.
5. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, I direct hereby that the respondents shall consider the issues regarding re-fixation of the petitioner's pension in accordance with the Rules and also regarding the deduction made from his payable gratuity amount in the light of 2 the grounds raised by the petitioner and take an appropriate decision on the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order and shall effectively communicate such decision to the petitioner.
As regards the other dues as mentioned in para-5(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the rejoinder, the respondents are directed to take an appropriate decision on the same and release the admitted dues under the various Heads to the petitioner within the period stipulated above.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J) Ranjeet/