IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 6150 of 2007
...
Raj Keshri Devi ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. Mineral Area Development Authority, represented through its
Managing Director, Dhanbad.
2. The Executive Engineer, Water Division, Mineral Area Development
Authority, Dhanbad. ... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Niranjan, Advocate.
For the Respondents : - Mr. Aparesh Kr. Singh, Advocate.
...
6/28.10.2009
Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Respondents
are not desirous to file any rejoinder to the supplementary affidavit filed by the
petitioner, since the issue in this writ application can be addressed even on the
basis of the pleadings contained in the writ application and in the counter affidavit
of the Respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the Respondents.
3. Petitioner was posted as ‘Khalashi’ under the Respondents at
Damodar Head Works, Jamadoba, Dhanbad. She had retired from service with
effect from 30.06.2007. However, despite having retired, her post-retiral benefits
was not paid to her in spite of her repeated representations. The delay in payment
compelled her to file the instant writ application with a prayer to issue directions
to the Respondents to pay her the Provident Fund amount with interest, Gratuity
amount, Group Insurance amount, arrears of D.A., arrears of selection Grade,
Earned Leave encashment and the benefits of the 06th Pay Revision.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents
acknowledging the fact that the petitioner was employed under the Respondents
and had retired from service on 30.06.2007. It is also admitted that the petitioner’s
claim for payment of post-retirement benefits and other service benefits was
considered and after proper assessment, she has been found to be legally entitled
for her claim. The chart at Para 5 of the counter affidavit shows the amounts
assessed under the various heads, which, are payable to the petitioner. The
counter affidavit affirms that the amount of Rs.2,21,323/-, payable towards
Provident Fund dues has been deposited by a cheque in the provident fund
account of the petitioner on 08.01.2008 and in addition a cheque of Rs.18,738/- is
also ready for being handed over to the petitioner in the Lok Adalat, expected to
be held in the premises of the High Court. Another cheque for a sum of
Rs.77,468/- has also been drawn in favour of the petitioner towards payment of
arrears of payment of salary and Dearness Allowance on the basis of the 06th Pay
Revision. Yet another cheque for a sum of Rs.84,630/- has also been drawn in
favour of the petitioner towards Earned Leave Encashment amount and the same
would be delivered to the petitioner at the proposed Lok Adalat.
5. As regards the claim for payment of Gratuity, it is stated that the
same can be made only if the petitioner vacates the official quarter and after
adjustment of the account of House Rent etc., due from the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledges that the
aforementioned cheques have been subsequently delivered to the petitioner and
the principal amount of Provident Fund has also been received by the petitioner.
Learned counsel submits that notwithstanding the aforesaid receipts, the
Respondents are liable to pay further amount to the petitioner by way of interest
on the delayed payments of Provident Fund amount, arrears of Dearness
Allowance on the basis of the old pay-scale for the period January, 1993 to
March, 1997 calculated at Rs.8710/-, Interim relief for the period 01.04.1995 to
31.12.1995 calculated at Rs.1127/- and the Area Regional Allowance of Rs.1025/-
for the period 01.04.1991 to 31.08.1994. Learned counsel adds that in addition to
the aforesaid amounts, the Gratuity amount of Rs.1,04,980/- and the difference of
Group insurance amount of Rs.9068/- is still payable by the Respondents, which
have not been paid to him. Learned counsel submits further, that the plea in
respect of the occupation of the official quarter, is misconceived in view of the
fact that the petitioner has already vacated the official quarter on 22.01.2008,
which would be affirmed by the letter (Annexure-1/1).
7. As it appears, the Respondents have not filed any rejoinder to the
statements contained in the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner nor have they
denied the claim of further amount of money under the various heads as claimed
by the petitioner. It is deemed therefore, that the Respondents have acknowledged
their liability to pay the aforesaid balance amounts to the petitioner.
8. Under the circumstances, the concerned authorities of the
Respondents shall treat the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner as a
representation filed on her behalf and consider and examine the claim of the
petitioner and after proper verification, shall pay the amounts legally payable to
the petitioner, within three months from the date of this order.
9. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of.
10. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
Respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK