Binay Kumar Jain Son Of Late Dhanna ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 97 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        W.P. (S) No.2358 of 2020
                                        ------

Binay Kumar Jain son of Late Dhanna Lal Jain aged about 61 years, resident of Station Road Isri Bazar, P.O. Isri Bazar & P.S. Nimiyaghat, Pipradih, District Giridih, Jharkhand .... .... .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi

2. The Director, Secondary Education Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi

3. The District Education Officer, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih

4. The Principal Paras Nath Digambar Jain (P.N.D. Jain) High School, P.O. Isri Bazar, P.S. Nimiyaghat, District Giridih

5. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Ms. Shreshtha Mehta, A.C. to S.C. II For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate

------

04/07.01.2021 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shreshtha Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondent to release the earned leave along with interest.

Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired on 31.03.2019. He submits that other retiral benefits of the petitioner has been paid, however, A.C.P. and Earned Leave has not been paid to the petitioner that is why the petitioner has moved before this Court. The petitioner has filed representation which is at page 33 of the writ petition but no decision has been taken on his representation. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.694 of 2018 along with analogous cases.

Ms. Shreshtha Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that if the representation of the petitioner is pending that will be decided by the competent authority.

In view of above submission of learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner is directed to file fresh representation before respondent no.3 within a period of three weeks annexing all the credentials including the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.694 of 2018 along with analogous cases. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent no.3 shall take a decision in accordance with rules, regulations and guidelines considering the judgment referred by this Court in the case of Mariyam Tirky Versus State of Jharkhand reported in 2014(1) JBCJ 465 (HC) within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Anit