Sumit Kumar Bhadra vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3003 Jhar

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                                  WP(S) No. 2828 of 2021
                                                        ----

1. Sumit Kumar Bhadra

2. Chitta Ranjan Bhakat

3. Tushar Kanti Mukherjee . ..... Petitioners.

Versus.

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Department of School Education & Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. The District Education Officer, Jamshedpur. ....... Respondents.

             CORAM:              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                                 Through: Video Conferencing.
                                                       -----
            For the petitioners:        Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, Advocate.
            For the State:              Mr. Sreenu Garapati, SC-III
                                                       -----
03/19.08.2021:     In view of nature of this case, this Court feels that it is not necessary to direct the

respondent authorities to file counter affidavit.

In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for direction upon the respondents for payment of admitted dues of leave encashment to them.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are the teachers of Government aided minority school. He further submits that the petitioners are entitled to get their leave encashment in terms of the judgment dated 3.1.2014 passed in the case of Mariyam Tirkey Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and Others in WPS No. 506 of 2013 and its analogous cases reported in 2014(1) JBCJ 465, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 20606-20607/2014. He also submits that in view of the aforesaid judgment, since the petitioners are entitled to receive the amount, the respondent authority is duty bound to disburse the same immediately when the petitioners superannuated. But in this case, the amount has not been disbursed to the petitioners.

The counsel for the State submits that if the petitioners represent before the respondent No. 2, their case will be looked into and an appropriate order will be passed in terms of the judgment passed in the case of Mariyam Tirkey (Supra).

In view of the submissions made above, I direct the petitioners to file a representation annexing all the documents, which the petitioners are relying upon, before respondent No. 2 and on receipt of such representation, respondent No. 2 will consider the representation of the petitioners, especially taking into consideration the judgment mentioned above and will pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three weeks. If the petitioners are entitled to get any benefit, the same will be extended to them within two weeks thereafter. If the claim of the petitioners is denied, reasoned order for such denial will be passed and communicated to the petitioners.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

Anu-CP-2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)