Jharkhand High Court
T Hussain And Ors vs The Jharkhand State Agricultural ... on 11 December, 2017
1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5166 of 2017
T. Hussain & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Versus
The Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board & Ors.
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
Miss Ragini Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Dr. A.K. Singh, Advocate
3/ 11.12.2017About half a century ago in "Deokinandan Prasad vs State of Bihar and Others" reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330, a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court has held that the pension to an employee is not a gratuitous reward rather, it is statutory right akin to right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is also no longer in the realm of doubt that gratuity forms part of postretiral benefits to an employee. The petitioners, five in numbers, have approached this Court with the prayer that only a part of postretiral benefits, such as gratuity and group insurance amounts were paid to them. They superannuated from service sometime between 30.11.2015 to 31.10.2016. They have pleaded that they have submitted several representations for payment of remaining amount of postretiral benefits. They were posted as Record Keeper, Senior Personal Assistant and Accountant under the respondentJharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board, when they superannuated from service. It is stated that the Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board was created on 14.03.2001.
Dr. A.K. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that apart of gratuity and group insurance amounts which were deducted from salary of the petitioners were deposited with the erstwhile Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board and on account of delay in release of the said amount by the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, the petitioners could not be paid their postretiral benefits fully.
2.On this, Mr. V.P. Singh, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, refers to order passed in W.P.(S) No.5410 of 2015 to contend that on account of dispute between two statutory authorities, the employees cannot be made to suffer.
On request of Mr. (Dr.) A.K. Singh, the learned counsel for the respondents, Administrator, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (dissolved), Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna is added as partyrespondent in the present proceeding. The learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to serve Dasti summons upon the newly added respondent no.3 and file affidavit of Dasti notice upon respondent no.3 on or before 12.01.2018.
In the meantime, the respondents may file a counteraffidavit, which must disclose the amounts paid to the petitioners on account of postretiral benefits and the balance amount for which they are entitled to. It is made clear that the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents must disclose all admissible and payable postretiral benefits to the petitioners, and shall not necessarily be confined to the prayer made in the writpetition.
Post the matter on 23.01.2018.
Mr. V.P. Singh, the learned Senior counsel, on instructions, states that there are several other writpetitions of similar nature pending before this Court. The learned Senior counsel undertakes to furnish the list of cases, which shall be notified on 13.12.2017 under the heading "For Orders".
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) SI/ ,