Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Pratap Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 15 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2572 of 2021
1. Vijay Pratap Singh
2. Kunal Abhishek
(substituted petitioner)
3. Ravindra Nayaran Sharma
4. Umesh Kumar Tiwari. ......... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of School
Education & Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Department of School Education &
Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. District Education Officer, Jamshedpur.
............ Respondents
---------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
(Through: Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Nehru Mahto, AC to GP
---------
I.A. No. 4532 of 2021
02/ 15.12.2021 Instant Interlocutory Application has been preferred for substitution of
petitioner No. 2, namely, Kamakhya Narayan Singh, who died during the pendency
of the instant writ application.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the details of the legal
heirs of the petitioner No. 2 has been mentioned in para-9 of the I.A and for the ends
of justice, this I.A. may be allowed.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has no objection
to the same.
In view of fair submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, office
is directed to delete the name of petitioner No. 2 from the cause title of the main writ
application and substitute the name of legal heir of the said petitioner as per details
mentioned in para-9 of the interlocutory application.
I.A. No. 4532 of 2021 stands allowed.
W.P.(S). No. 2572 of 2021
Petitioners have approached this Court with prayer for direction upon
the respondents to pay the admitted dues of leave encashment.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue
involved in this case is no more res-integra in view of the judgment passed in case of
Mariam Tirkey & others Vrs. the State of Jharkhand & others, reported in 2014
(1) JLJR 465, which has been affirmed upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of
ratio laid down in case of Mariam Tirkey, the respondents cannot be permitted to
stop/ withhold the benefit of leave encashment payable to the petitioners. Learned
counsel for the petitioners further submits that though the representation of the
petitioners are pending but the respondents have not passed any order on the same.
Learned counsel further submits that suffice it would be if a direction is given to the
respondents to pass reasoned order with regard to payment of admitted dues of the
petitioners under the heads of earned leave, taking into account the judgment passed
in case of Mariam Tirkey (supra).
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents very
fairly submit that if this Court directs the petitioners to file fresh representation
before the respondent-authorities, the respondents shall pass reasoned order on the
same.
In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I
hereby direct the petitioners to file fresh representation annexing all the relevant
documents on which he is relying, within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and after receiving the same alongwith the copy of this
order, the respondent-State shall consider the same in accordance with law and taking
into consideration the observations made by this Hon'ble Court in case of Mariam
Tirkey (supra) pass a reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of representation of the petitioners and extend the benefits of admitted dues
under the heading of earned leave to the petitioners within a further period of four
weeks.
Let it be made clear that if the admitted dues under the heading of
earned leave is not extended to the petitioners within the aforesaid period, the
respondents shall be liable to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners.
With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands
allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
kunal/-
