High Court Jharkhand High Court

Yugeshwar Thakur vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 July, 2011

Jharkhand High Court
Yugeshwar Thakur vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 July, 2011
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               W.P. (S) No. 3030 of 2011

         Yugeshwar Thakur                             ...    ...     Petitioner
                               Versus
         The State of Jharkhand and others          ...  ... Respondents
                               -----
         CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
                               -----
         For the Petitioner          : Mr. M.K. Sah, Advocate
         For the State               : J.C. to S.C.-II
         For the Accountant General : Mr. S. Srivastava, Advocate
                               -----

2/19.07.2011

Heard the parties.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner got retired on 31.12.2009 from the post of Assistant
Engineer while posted in the Department of Konar Nahar Pramandal,
Bagodar, Giridih. Thereupon, certain payments towards retiral dues
were made and even the provisional pension was fixed. On fixation of
the provisional pension, the same was paid to him till August, 2010
but since then the Authority has stopped making payment of the
provisional pension and that apart, the amounts to be paid towards
gratuity, leave encashment, G.P.F. and the arrears of salary, have also
not been paid though the petitioner had made representation in this
regard before the Authority, but nothing fruitful came out and,
therefore, the petitioner has moved to this Court.

Since the Authority has still to take decision in the matter,
this writ application is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a
fresh representation, raising all his claims, which have been claimed
in this writ petition, before the Secretary, Department of Water
Resources, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (respondent no. 2) along
with a copy of this order within three weeks from today and the
respondent no. 2, on receiving the representation, would be taking
decision in respect of payment of retiral dues to the petitioner within a
period of eight weeks thereafter.

At the same time, the respondent no. 2 would be doing
needful in the matter of fixation of pension. On such determination,
the amount, found payable, be paid to the petitioner immediately
thereafter.

(R.R. Prasad, J.)

AKT