The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.875 of 2022 ……. Shalini Devi ... ... Petitioners -V e r s u s - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Palamau The Addl. Chief Medical Officer, Palamau The State Malaria Officer, Jharkhand, Ranchi The District Malaria Officer, Palamau The Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi The District Treasury Officer, Medninagar, Palamau ... Respondents With W.P.(S) No.6589 of 2022 Shalini Devi ... ... Petitioners -V e r s u s - The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Jharkhand, RCH 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi 3. Building, Namkum, Ranchi 4. 5. 6. 7. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Palamau The State Malaria Officer, Jharkhand, Ranchi The District Malaria Officer, Palamau The District Treasury Officer, Medninagar, Palamau ... Respondents CORAM: - THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ……. For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Rinku Bhagat, Advocate : Mr. K.K. Singh, SC-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V Mr. R.K. Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate .…… 14/ 10.05.2023 In the both the cases, petitioner is same person. In W.P.(S) No.875 of 2022, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Memo No.1669 dated 15.11.2021 issued by the Accountant 2 General (A & E), Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder, the amount of family pension admissible to the petitioner has not been fixed as per the last pay drawn by her deceased husband. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to fix the family pension of the petitioner and release the rest of due amount such as gratuity etc. on account of death of her husband with interest. In W.P.(S) No. 6589 of 2022, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to grant the benefits of 1st & 2nd ACP/MACP in favour of the deceased husband of petitioner and all consequential benefits be released in favour of the petitioner. 2. The husband of the petitioner was appointed on 25.06.1998 in the office of Malaria Department and posted as Accounts Clerk in the office of District Malaria Officer, Palamau at Daltonganj. However, he died in harness on 21.01.2021. After the death of her husband, the petitioner claimed for death-cum-retiral benefits as well as fixation of family pension. Pursuant to the same, the respondent-State recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension and also for payment of gratuity. However, objections were raised by the office of Accountant General regarding fixation of pay-scale of the deceased husband of the petitioner and as such, the case of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 15.11.2021 and family pension of the petitioner has not been fixed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.875 of 2022. 2. The petitioner also filed another writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6589 of 2022 as the husband of the petitioner was not been given any promotion in the entire career of service and as such, he is entitled for the benefits of 1st & 2nd ACP/MACP, but the same has not granted to him. 4. Ms. Rinku Bhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court towards supplementary affidavit dated 08.05.2023 and submits that the respondents have admitted that husband of the petitioner was entitled for pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000/-, but the same be given w.e.f. from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 25.06.1998 not from 15.11.2000 and as such, petitioner is also entitled for arrears for the 3 said period. She further submits that in view of admitted position, a direction be given upon the respondents for fixation of family pension and rest of death-cum-retiral benefit with interest be paid to her as there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State very fairly submits that just after the death of husband of the petitioner, the case of the petitioner was recommended for family pension to the office of Accountant General, but after objection raised by the Accountant General, same cannot be released in her favour. He further submits that now the Finance Department admitted and accepted that as per the Resolution dated 08.07.2014, the husband of the petitioner was entitled for the pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000 w.e.f. date of joining notionally and the actual benefits of the said scale shall be admissible to him w.e.f 15.11.2000 when the Jharkhand came into existence and the husband of the petitioner has already taken the actual benefits of said pay scale and as such, her family pension shall be fixed within sort span of time. 6. Mr. R.K. Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent –State submits that the husband of the petitioner is entitled for benefits of ACP/MACP and since the dispute regarding pay-scale of the petitioner has already been finalized, the benefits of ACP/MACP shall be given to petitioner. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the fair submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the respondent-State has recommended the case of the petitioner for fixation of family pension to the office of Accountant General, who has raised the objection regarding fixation of pay-scale of the husband of the petitioner. Now, upon the intervention of the Court, the Finance Department has accepted that the pay-scale of the husband of the petitioner was Rs.4500-7000/- at the time of appointment, which is not disputed by the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed that the husband of the petitioner is 4 entitled for arrears of the said pay-scale from the date of his joining i.e., 25.06.1998 and not from 15.11.2000, the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to this Court since the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Accounts Clerk on 25.06.1998 i.e., prior to cut off date mentioned in the departmental resolution No.2388 dated 08.07.2014, hence, he shall be entitled for the pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000/- w.e.f. date of his joining notionally whereas, the actual benefits of the said pay-scale shall be admissible to him from 15.11.2000. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner is entitled for the said benefits from 15.11.2000 as State of Jharkhand came into existence on 15.11.2000 though fixation has been done notionally w.e.f. 25.06.1998, which is fully justified. As the dispute regarding pay –fixation of the husband of the petitioner has been resolved by the Finance Department, the respondent- State is directed to recommend the case of the petitioner for family pension, taking into consideration the initial pay-scale of husband of the petitioner as Rs.4500-7000/- w.e.f. 15.11.2000 and since it was also admitted by the respondents that husband of the petitioner is entitled for 1st & 2nd ACP/MACP benefits and only dispute was regarding fixation of pay-scale and now that the dispute is over, the respondents are directed to grant the benefits of 1st & 2nd ACP/MACP and thereafter, pay the entire arrears of salary as well as family pension as also other retiral benefits including gratuity etc. admissible to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks and to revise the family pension accordingly, within a further period of six weeks thereafter. Further, the respondent-Accountant General is directed to fix the family pension of the petitioner and to release the amount in favour of the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. The petitioner is also directed to sign revised pension paper, which will be sent to Accountant General. 8. It is made clear that petitioner is also entitled for statutory interest @ 6 % per annum on the aforesaid amount till actual payment, since the matter was delayed at the hands of the respondents and petitioner shall not be penalized for the fault of the respondents. 5 9. Resultantly, writ petition No.875 of 2022 stands disposed of and W.P.(S) No.6589 of 2022 stands allowed. punit/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)