Jharkhand High Court
Mrs. Mary Lugun vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 October, 2018
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4337 of 2018
----
1. Mrs. Mary Lugun
2. Mrs. Sabina Ekka
3. Mrs. Seteng Guria
4. Mrs. Mary Lakra --- --- ---- Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The District Education Officer, Simdega.
4. Secretary / Headmaster, Shaheed Herman Rasscheart High School, Kutingia, District Simdega. --- --- Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioners : Mr. Madan Mohan Pan, Adv.
For the State : Md. Razaullah Ansari, A.C. to S.C. Mines
---
03/10.10.2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.
Petitioners are widows and legal heirs of the deceased employees who died after superannuation from the post of Assistant Teacher or Headmaster on different dates from Shaheed Herman Rasscheart High School, Kutingia, District Simdega, a Government recognized minority aided school. Husband of the petitioner no.1 retired on 31.08.2003 and died on 14 th January 2004 leaving behind the petitioner and five children. Husband of petitioner no.2 retired on 31st October 2003 from the post of Assistant Teacher and died on 11th October 2012 leaving behind the petitioner and three married daughters and three married sons. Husband of petitioner no.3 superannuated on 31st March 2009 from the same post and later on died on 7 th January 2011 leaving behind the petitioner and two sons. Husband of petitioner no.4 superannuated on 31st December 2000 as Headmaster of the same school and died on 27th August 2013 leaving behind the petitioner and four adult sons.
According to the petitioners, their husbands were working in the Government recognized minority school and all expenses towards their salary and pensionary dues were funded by the State Government. After retirement the retiral benefits of the petitioners' deceased husbands were released on the basis of the pension payment order issued by the Accountant General, Jharkhand. After death of their husbands, they are getting monthly family pension. However, leave encashment amount has not been paid by the respondents.
-2-Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the issue has now been settled in view of the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mariyam Tirkey vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in WPS No. 506/2013 and analogous cases dated 3rd January 2014 which has also been reported in 2014 (1) JBCJ 465 and now upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 15.12.2014 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(s) 20606-20607/2014. Therefore, respondent no.3- District Education Officer, Simdega may be directed to take a decision on the claim of earned leave encashment amount.
Counsel for the State submits that instructions have not been received in the matter as it has been taken up for the first time. He further submits that the learned Division Bench of this Court has in the case of Mariyam Tirkey (Supra) decided the issue of admissibility of the earned leave encashment to the teachers of recognized Aided Minority Schools. The claim of the individual petitioners/widows relate to the different periods which can be considered by the competent authorities/respondent no.3- District Education Officer, Simdega after due scrutiny of material facts and service records of the employees and in accordance with law, if so directed.
Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and relevant material facts noted above.
The husbands of the petitioners have died at different points of time from the post of Teacher or Headmaster from Shaheed Herman Rasscheart High School, Kutingia, District Simdega, stated to be a Government recognized aided minority school. The competent authority- respondent no.3 is therefore required to examine the claim of the individual petitioners after due scrutiny of the service records of the deceased employees in accordance with law within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the individual representations on behalf of the petitioners. Let it be made clear that this Court has not made any comments on the merits of the case.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/