Gopal Chandra Shaw, son of late Krishna Prasad Shaw, Resident of Village Bankati, P.O v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.I.G. Registration having its office at Project Building, P.O. &
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 294 of 2017 ---------- Gopal Chandra Shaw, son of late Krishna Prasad Shaw, Resident of Village Bankati, P.O. Kaimi Via Baharagora, P.S.-Bahargagora, Dist.-East Singhbhum (Pin-832101) Petitioners ………… Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.I.G. Registration having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi 3.District Sub-Registrar having its office at Registry Office at Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum 4.Accountant General, Jharkhand having its office at Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi ………… Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ------- For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate Ms. Ayushi, Advocate : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, GA-IV Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, Advocate ---------- 22/ 21.10.2024 Heard the parties. 2. It is specific case of the petitioner that after retirement petitioner though received the entire emoluments but the amount of Rs.74250/- only has been paid which is a lesser amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated persons namely Ajit Kumar Kaibarate and Santosh Kumar Mandal were in the same category but though posted in different Districts have been paid an amount of Rs.2,56,262/- in the head of gratuity after retirement. 4. This Court vide order dated 06.05.2024 directed the respondents to file specific affidavit as to how of Ajit Kumar Kaibarate and Santosh Kumar Mandal working in the same category were paid much higher amount but nothing has been explained why different parameters were adopted for calculation of the gratuity amount. This Court is of the view that when similarly situated persons have been paid Rs.2,56,262/- in the head of gratuity, the petitioner cannot be discriminated and he should also be allowed the same benefit i.e. Rs.2,56,262/- instead of Rs.74,250/-. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and Ajit Kumar Kaibarte both were appointed on 05.04.2006 and later on were 1 inducted in regular services and the same has not been denied rather admitted by the respondents that both persons petitioner as well as Ajit Kumar Kaibarate have been appointed on the same date and thereafter inducted in the regular services. There cannot be any discrimination in payment of amount of gratuity. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State at this stage submits that the issue has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No.488 of 2004 with LPA No.512 of 2004. It is not in dispute that extra Clerk once taken into regular establishment by appointment as a temporary and permanent Clerk becomes eligible for pension subject to completion of qualifying period for pension. 7. Petitioner is aggrieved by non-consideration of his case for gratuity which is discriminatory as other similarly situated persons have been paid much more amount than the petitioner. 8. The issue fell for consideration before this Hon’ble Bench in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Kauleshwar Prasad & Ors. in LPA No.488 of 2004 with LPA No.512 of 2004 at para-18 which reads as under:- 18. In view of the discussions, made above and the guidelines, issued by the State Government, as the Extra Clerks cannot claim to count the total period of service, rendered as Extra Clerk for the purpose of pensionary benefits and as both the judgments, passed by the learned Single Judge in the present writ petitions, are based on the judgment rendered by the patna High Court in the case of Upendra Prasad (supra), they (judgment dated 20th January, 2004, passed in W.P.(C) No.648 of 2002 and the judgment dated 19.04.2004, passed in W.P.(S) No.4406 of 2002 are hereby set aside. The respondent/writ petitioner Kauleshwar Prasad, having been taken in the regular establishment on 10th Feburay, 1981 and retired on 31st December, 1994 and thereby having completed 13 years, 10 months and 21 days, is entitled to get only 1 year, 1 months and 10 days out of the period of service, rendered by him as Extra Clerk i.e. to the extent of shortage to court 15 years of temporary service to get the pensionary and other benefits. Similarly, the respondent/writ petitioner Girija Nand Prasad, having been taken permanently in the regular establishment on 29th November, 1972 and having retired on 29th Feburary, 1988 i.e. after about 15 years and 3 months and there being no shortage of the period for getting pensionary benefits, the period rendered by him as Extra Clerk cannot be counted for such purpose. 2 The appellant/State and its authorities will allow the benefits to the respondents/writ petitioners accordingly. Both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed and the appeals are allowed with the aforesaid observations and
Decision
direction. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 9. This Court has clearly held that Extra Clerk cannot claim counting of entire period of service rendered as Extra Clerk for the pensionary benefits. In the instant case similarly situated persons have been treated differently. Though specific query was made by this Court as to why one Ajit Kumar Kaibarte was paid amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs.2,56,262/- whereas petitioner was discriminated and paid the amount of Rs.74,250/- only but the same has not been replied by the respondents. It was also observed that if the amount was wrongly paid to the Ajit Kumar Kaibarte in excess of his entitlement, what steps have been taken against the erring officers by the respondent-authorities. Even if it was a mistake on the part of the respondents, the same was supposed to be corrected by the authorities concerned but despite the specific order of this Court it appears that nothing has been done on the part of the respondent-authorities in this direction which smacks of malafide. The State cannot discriminate between the employees regarding their entitlement of amount of gratuity in this fashion. Admittedly as per the law, both the aforesaid employees were not entitled for the amount which they have been paid. However, if the amount has been paid to Ajit Kumar Kaibarte counting his past service as Extra Clerk, the case of the petitioner should also be considered for the benefits given to Ajit Kumar Kaibarte. In this view of the matter, difference of amount of gratuity be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. However, if the amount paid in excess to Ajit Kumar Kaibarte is recovered in view of order passed earlier by this Court, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any further amount. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Rohit/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 3