IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3972 of 2003
1. Sudovi Devi;
2. Janak Das Adhikari
3. Harihar Das Adhikari
4. Haldhar Das Adhikari .......... PETITIONERS
- VERSUS -
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Finance Commissioner, Project Bhawan, Jharkhand.
3. Secretary, Health Department, Jharkhand.
4. Civil Surgeon - cum - Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi.
5. Additional Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi.
6. Sub Divisional, Assistant Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi.
7, Incharge Medical Officer, Tamar.
8. Zila Prarishad, Ranchi through Deputy Development Commissioner -
cum - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ranchi.
9. Accountant General, Jharkhand.
10. The Treasury Officer, Ranchi, ... ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY.
For the Petitioner : Mr. P. Gangopadhyay, Advocate.
Mr. J.P. Sahu, Advocate.
For the State Mr. Manoj Tandon, S.C. - II.
For the Accountant General: Mr. S. Shrivastava, Advocate.
6/16.09.2009
Heard the parties.
The petitioner is said to be appointed as a Vaccinator in the
year 1951 by the District Board, Ranchi. He retired from service on
30.01.1988. Now by filing the present writ petition in 2003, the petitioner, who
is now dead, has prayed for pensionary benefits as admissible to the other
Government servants.
It appears that on earlier occasions also, in the year 2000 said
deceased-petitioner Dani Das Adhikari (now substituted by his widow and
sons) had filed C.W.J.C. 4079 of 2000 claiming retiral benefits. The said writ
petition was disposed of by order dated 06.02.2001 considering the fact
that there was no provision for payment of pension in Zila Parishad.
Therefore, it appears that for the same cause of action, the
present writ petition has been field. The present case is fully covered by the
decision of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 17 of 2009 passed on 18.04.2009
wherein it has been held that after 22 years of retirement the claim for
retiral benefits cannot be entertained. The present case has also been filed
after more than 15 years and at this belated stage, this application cannot
be entertained, more so when his earlier writ petition for the same cause of
action was disposed of finally holding that he is not entitled to the retiral
benefits.
In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ
petition. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.
RC/ (Amareshwar Sahay, J.)