The Jharkhand State Housing Board through the Managing Director v. Argora, Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1237 of 2021 Raj Kumar Mahto …. …. Petitioner 1. The Jharkhand State Housing Board through the Managing Director, Versus Argora, Ranchi 2. The Secretary Jharkhand State Housing Board, Argora, Ranchi 3. The Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Doranda, Ranchi 4. The Regional Commissioner Employee Provident Fund, Lalpur, Ranchi …. …. Respondents with W.P.(S) No. 1267 of 2021 Satya Narayan Prasad …. …. Petitioner 1. The Jharkhand State Housing Board through the Managing Director, Versus Argora, Ranchi 2. The Secretary Jharkhand State Housing Board, Argora, Ranchi 3. The Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Doranda, Ranchi 4. The Regional Commissioner Employee Provident Fund, Lalpur, Ranchi …. …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
------ : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sweta Shukla, Advocate Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate ----- 09/15.05.2024 Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. 3. Since identical issues have been raised in both these cases, they are being taken up together. Petitioners have prayed for extending the benefits of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as similarly situated persons in the State of Bihar are getting the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the head of gratuity and also for revision of their pension and payment of arrears of salary in light of the 6th pay revision. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1237 of 2021 retired from the services as an Account Assistant from 1 Shashank the Headquarter of Jharkhand State Housing Board on 30.06.2008 and the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1267 of 2021 retired from the services as a Section Officer from the Headquarter of the Jharkhand State Housing Board on 31.01.2009. After retirement, the petitioners were extended the retiral benefits, as per their entitlement, and were also sanctioned gratuity amount to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- and the same was accepted by them. Thereafter, the petitioners claim that they are entitled for enhanced gratuity to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as the same has been extended to other similarly situated persons of Housing Board in the State of Bihar. However, the same was not paid and hence, the instant writ petitions have been filed. 5. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, vociferously argues that the petitioners are entitled for the same benefits as to what has been extended to the employees of Housing Board in the State of Bihar. Learned counsel further argues that since State of Jharkhand has adopted all the Acts including Payment of Gratuity Act of the State of Bihar, therefore, petitioners are entitled for the benefits of enhanced gratuity, since when the said Act has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Sweta Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board, submits that admittedly State of Bihar is extending the benefits of gratuity to the tune Rs. 10,00,000/- and State of Jharkhand has also adopted the same rule, however, the same has been given effect from 24.05.2010. Learned counsel further submits that specific averment to this effect has been made in Paragraph No. 7 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in W.P.(S) No. 1237 of 2021. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioners retired on 30.06.2008 and 31.01.2009 respectively, i.e. before 24.05.2010, they are not entitled for the benefit of enhanced gratuity. 7. Regarding the revision of pension of the petitioners is concerned, Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the 2 Shashank respondent-E.P.F.O., draws the attention of the court towards Paragraph No. 6 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 in W.P.(S) No. 1267 of 2021 and submits that the entire benefit for which the petitioners were found entitled for has already been extended to them on the basis of the preceding 12 month wages. 8. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsels for the parties, on perusal of the documents brought on record and in view of the specific averments made in the counter- affidavits and in view of the admitted fact that the petitioners have already received the benefits as per their entitlement and the amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- has also already been paid, nothing more is required to be paid to the petitioners. The argument of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that since the State of Jharkhand has adopted all the Acts from the State of Bihar, the petitioners should be extended the same benefits, is totally misconceived. The policy decision is exclusive dolman of the State. Though the same has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand, but it has been effectuated only from February, 2011, and the same cannot be given to the petitioners from retrospective effect. Any rule or act has to be given a prospective effect from the date it is imposed and not from the retrospective date, as it has been considered and given in the neighbouring State of Bihar. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the cases, nothing remains to be adjudicated. However, petitioners are at liberty to file fresh representations before the competent authority for revision of their pension, as per their entitlement, if it has not been extended till date. If such representation is received by the respondent-Authorities, the same shall be considered, in accordance with law, and a reasoned order shall be passed and if the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced benefit, the same shall be given to them. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Even if any 3 Shashank adverse order is passed, the same shall also be communicated to the petitioners within the aforesaid period. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ
Decision
petitions stand disposed of. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) Shashank 4