Jharkhand High Court
Jagdish Prasad Choudhary vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 October, 2014
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 6305 of 2013
...
Jagdish Prasad Choudhary ... ...Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. .. ...Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
...
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : J.C. to G.P.II
....
05/09.10.2014Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner upon his retirement on 31st May, 2011 from the post of Teacher in Primary School Telaiya Anchal Bengabad district Giridih approached this Court for payment of post retiral benefits as also for quashing of order dated 15th April, 2011 bearing Memo No. 636 issued by the respondent no. 4 District Superintendent of Education, Giridih where under he has been imposed with the punishment withholding two annual increment of salary of the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner at the outset fairly submits that retiral benefits are being paid to the petitioner. The respondents have also indicated in their counter affidavit that the admissible post retiral dues are being paid and for rest of the admissible dues, petitioner has to submit necessary papers. It appears from the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that his pension has not been fixed on that account.
Learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that there is provision of statutory appeal under Article 224 of the Bihar Education Code for the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievances relating to the impugned punishment of order which has been passed upon the decision of the Establishment Committee.
Having heard leaned counsel for the parties and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that there are two aspects of the matter. The first aspect relating to payment of post retiral dues; some of the post retiral dues such as G.P.F, Group Insurance, Leave Encashment, and Gratuity have been paid to the petitioner. Petitioner is required to fulfill necessary formalities and fill up the pension form before the Competent Authority for processing his claim and payment of final pension.
The petitioner is allowed liberty to approach the Competent Authority/ Respondent No. 4 District Superintendent of Education, Giridih for redressal of the aforesaid grievance which may be considered in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
So far as the challenge to order of punishment dated 15th April, 2011 at Annexure 1 is concerned petitioner is allowed liberty to avail the remedy of appeal before the Competent Authority which must be preferred within a period of two weeks from today. If such an appeal is preferred before the Competent Authority, the delay in preferring the same may be considered sympathetically in view of the fact that petitioner has been pursuing his remedy before this Court in the present writ application. The Appellate Authority should take a decision on his appeal within a reasonable time preferably 12 weeks thereafter.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
Needless to say that depending upon outcome of the appeal, if the petitioner is entitled to any further benefits of post retiral dues and arrear of salary, the same be conferred within a reasonable time thereafter.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Amardeep/-