1.Bhagirath Rajwar 2.Paro Devi 3.Manoj Kumar Rajwar 4.Saroj Kumar Rajwar 5.Suraj Kumar Rajwar 6.Vishal v. Coram: State of Jharkhand & Ors
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (C) No. 860 of 2011 1.Bhagirath Rajwar 2.Paro Devi 3.Manoj Kumar Rajwar 4.Saroj Kumar Rajwar 5.Suraj Kumar Rajwar 6.Vishal Kumar Rajwar............................ Petitioners Versus Coram: State of Jharkhand & Ors………… …… Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.R.Prasad …… : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, Advocate …… For the Petitioners For MADA Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
10./09.05.2013 Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for MADA submits that an affidavit has already been filed wherein it has been stated that some of the amounts towards retiral dues, has already been paid to the petitioners and for making payment of the rest of the amount, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) is being paid to them every month and that the Authority would be making payment of the said amount every month till the entire amount payable to the petitioners is paid. It is further submitted that decision has already been taken over the matter relating to the compassionate appointment whereby the claim of the petitioners was not found tenable and perhaps that order has been challenged by the petitioners before this Court. In view of the submissions, made on behalf of MADA, this proceeding for contempt is hereby dropped. Mukund/-cp.3 (R.R.Prasad, J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (C) No. 866 of 2011 Jawahar Lal Singh............................ Petitioner Versus Coram: State of Jharkhand & Ors………… …… Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.R.Prasad …… : Mr. Peeyush Krishna, Advocate : Mr. R.Mukhopadhyay, Advocate …… For the Petitioner For the State Opp. Parties 13./09.05.2013 Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in terms of the order passed in the writ application and also the order passed on 10/01/2013, in this contempt application, decision has already been taken by the Joint Secretary, Finance Department, whereby claim of grant of first Time Bound Promotion has been found to be admissible but the claim of grant of second Time Bound Promotion was not found payable to the petitioner. From the order passed in the writ application, it does appear that
Decision
the writ application was disposed of directing the Authority to take decision in the matter. Since, the decision has already been taken by the Authority, the order passed by this Court seems to have been complied with. Accordingly, this proceeding for contempt is hereby dropped. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge that part of the order whereby the claim of grant of second Time Bound Promotion has been rejected, before an appropriate forum. Mukund/-cp.3 (R.R.Prasad, J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (C) No. 862 of 2011 Smt. Sangita Jha ............................ Petitioner Versus Coram: State of Jharkhand & Anr………… …… Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.R.Prasad …… : Mr. Sunil Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. JC to G.A. …… For the Petitioners For the State Opp. Parties 9./09.05.2013 It was stated on behalf of the State that a final order has already been passed by the SDM, Saraikela in Execution Case No. 1/2012. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the final order has been passed but the order passed by SDM, Saraikela, has never been carried out. Upon it, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the matter be posted after Summer Vacation so that in the meantime, he may file an affidavit as to whether the order passed by SDM, Saraikela, has been carried out or not? Put up this case after Summer Vacation. Mukund/- (R.R.Prasad, J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (C) No. 176 of 2012 Bihar State Non-Gazetted Employees Federation & (14) Ors...................... Petitioners Versus Coram: State of Jharkhand & Ors………… …… Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.R.Prasad …… : Mr. S.K.Dwivedi, Advocate : Mr. JC to GA …… For the Petitioners For the State Opp. Parties I.A. No. 1603 of 2013 8./09.05.2013 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that certain persons were employed in Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation. When it was found that that the surplus staffs are there in the Corporation, a decision was taken to absorb them in different Department of State Government and, thereby, some of the employees were transferred and posted in different District Consumer Forum but the pay scale was not given as that of the Corporation and at the same time, period during employment in the Corporation was not taken into account in the service period and, therefore, a writ application was filed on behalf of the Association. That writ application was disposed of holding therein that the petitioners are entitled to the same pay scale, which they were getting while employed in the Corporation. At the same time, member of the Association were asked to file representations before the competent authority putting forth the claim of computation of the period rendered during employment in the Corporation for the purpose of pension, which the petitioners did, but when nothing was done in this respect, this contempt petition was filed by some of the persons and not all, who had filed representations before the authority in terms of the order passed by this Court and, therefore, necessity arose for filing this interlocutory application for impleadment of Sri Sudarshan Singh as petitioner in this application and in such situation, prayer has been made to allow the petitioners to implead him as one of the petitioners. The prayer, in the facts and circumstances, is hereby allowed. Let Sri Sudarshan Singh be impleaded as one of the petitioners in this case. I.A. No. 1603 of 2013 stands disposed of. Cont. (C) No. 176 of 2012 It was submitted by Mr. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Deputy Commissioners of some of the Districts such as Ranchi, Chatra, Koderma and Dhanbad had complied the order fully but the Deputy Commissioners of Palamau and Giridih have partly complied with the order passed by this Court, whereby in case of some of the petitioners, period rendered during employment in the Corporation, has been computed but in case of others nothing has been done. Neither the scale has been given nor the period, rendered during employment in the Corporation, has been counted and in such situation, the Deputy Commissioners of Palamau and Giridih have certainly disobeyed the order passed by this Court. Upon it, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the matter be posted after Summer Vacation so that he will ensure that the order passed by this Court is complied with fully by the Deputy Commissioners of Palamau and Giridih. Put up this case on 13th June, 2013. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the State. Mukund/-cp.3 (R.R.Prasad, J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (C) No. 180 of 2012 Madhur Shyam Kunj ............................ Petitioner Versus Coram: State of Jharkhand & Anr………… …… Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.R.Prasad …… : Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate …… For the Petitioner For O.P. No. 2. Opp. Parties 9./09.05.2013 Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 submits that the documents, which have been filed in the case go to show that the order passed by this Court has already been complied with. Upon it, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that still the amount payable as interest @ 5% towards delayed payment of the Gratuity and Pension has not been paid. Upon it, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 submits that the order passed by this Court never speaks about payment of interest @ 5%. It is only with respect to payment of the statutory interest, which is to be paid on account of delayed payment. It is true that the order speaks about payment of the statutory interest but in terms of the Notification issued on 7th November 1981, which has even been adopted by the State Government, the petitioner becomes entitle to have interest @ 5% on account of delayed payment of Pension and Gratuity. Since, it is not known as to whether within time all the documents have been submitted or not, no direction can be issued at this stage. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a representation to this effect before the Director, RIMS, Ranchi, within two weeks so that decision be taken over it within four weeks thereafter. Let this matter be posted after six weeks. Mukund/-cp.3 (R.R.Prasad, J)