Viveka Nand Khawas vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2087 Jhar

                                       1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                         W. P. (S) No. 2180 of 2019

      1. Viveka Nand Khawas, Son of Late Bank Bihari Khawas, aged
         about 56 years, at present residing at Chas, P.O. & P.S. - Chas,
         District - Bokaro.
      2. Bhagirath Ray, Son of Sri S. D. Ray, aged about 55 years, at
         present residing at Kumhari, P.O. & P.S. - Chas, District- Bokaro.
                                                  ...     ...       Petitioners
                               Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand.
      2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department
         Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
         District Ranchi.
      3. The Secretary Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Project
         Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
      4. The Special Secretary-cum-Director, Directorate of Provident
         Fund, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project
         Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
      5. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District
         - Bokaro.
      6. The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.
         Bokaro, District - Bokaro.          ...      ...        Respondents
                               ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

06/08.06.2022

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Prashant Kumar Srivastava is present.

2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

"for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing part of the order contained in P.R. No. 2105/(Finance-06)-05-06 (Annexure-3) so far the petitioner are concerned and the impugned notification dated 9-12-2014 (Annexure-3A) whereby and where under a decision has been taken that the persons appointed after 1.12.2014 shall not be entitled for General Provident Fund as well as the pension, though, the aforesaid circular is not at all appeasable in the cases of these petitioners, as the process for appointment has already been done much prior to issuance of the notification/resolution; and/or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to give effect of the aforesaid impugned orders as contained in Annexure-3 & 3/A and to open the accounts with regard to the General Provident Fund contribution

and to provide the facility for payment of the pension, as other similarly situated persons are being provided the same discrimination, the case of these petitioners.

                                                   And/or
                     For      further     issuance      of   an      appropriate

writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that he has gone through the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, wherein a judgment dated 14.02.2019 passed in L.P.A. No. 756/2018 has been annexed and submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the said judgment, which is against the petitioner.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the aforesaid submissions, no relief as prayed for by the petitioners can be granted in view of the admitted position from the side of the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is covered against the petitioners by virtue of judgement dated 14.02.2019 passed in L.P.A. No. 756/2018. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

6. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul