Chandrashekhar Prasad Sinha And ... vs State Of Jharkhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3146 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                W.P.(S) No. 857 of 2010

                Chandrashekhar Prasad Sinha and others    ...  ...  Petitioners
                                         Versus
                State of Jharkhand and others       ...      ...   Respondents
                                         With
                                  W.P.(S) No. 7009 of 2013

                Ashok Kumar Mishra                            ...     ...     Petitioner
                                         Versus
                The State of Jharkhand and others         ...     ...       Respondents

                                ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate (In W.P. (S) No. 857/2010) Mr. Altamas Khan, Advocate (In W.P. (S) No. 7009/2013) For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Priti Priyambada, Advocate

---

11/11.08.2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 857 of 2010 Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur submits that a counter affidavit has been filed in the present case dated 30.01.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not being paid the post retiral benefits on account of the fact that the respondent Municipality does not have any finance and affidavit has been filed by the respondent Municipality to this effect.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that similar matter has been referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice with a request for placing it before appropriate Division Bench vide order dated 07.07.2021 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4269 of 2018 and the said writ petition has not yet been disposed of . Learned counsel submits that issues have also been framed in the said order which is quoted hereunder:-

" (a) Whether post retiral benefits, which are supposed to be paid in lump-sum, can be paid in installments, spreading over a period of time, to the retired employee?

(b) Whether payment of post retiral benefits in installments infringes the right to life of a retired employee?

(c) Whether "non availability of fund" can be a ground to delay the payment of retiral benefits?

(d) Whether in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kapila Hingorani versus The State of Bihar reported in (2003) 6 SCC 1 the concept of lifting of veil be applied in cases of Statutory Bodies / Corporations and Municipalities, and the State be directed to provide grant / aid for payment of retiral benefits?

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 7009 of 2013 Mr. Altamash Khan submits that similar is the position in his case also.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Considering the aforesaid submission, let these cases be tagged along with W. P. (S) No. 4269 of 2018.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit