Brij Kishore Ram v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
Judgment
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : : For the State ------ Mr. V. S. Prasad, Advocate J.C. to G.A. ------ 03/01.04.2013: The petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to grant benefits of first and second ACP on completion of 12 and 24 years of his service in the department. It has been submitted that the petitioner after appointment as Forest Guard in the year 1988 had completed 12 years of service in 2000 and he was entitled to get the benefit of first ACP, but the same was not given to the petitioner. The petitioner has now completed more than 24 years of service and he is entitled to get the benefit of second ACP with effect from 3rd May, 2012, but in spite of repeated requests and representation, the said benefits have not been given to the petitioner. Learned J.C. to G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand is the competent authority to consider the petitioner's claim and if the petitioner's representation is still pending or if he files fresh representation, regarding his claim, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed Considering the said submissions, this writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation, regarding his claim, before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand-Respondent No.4. On receipt of representation, the said respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of the representation. If the petitioner is found entitled to get the said benefits, arrears of monetary benefits thereof shall be paid to the petitioner within six weeks thereafter. Sanjay/ (Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.