Jharkhand High Court
Ram Krishna Tiwary vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 17 July, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5014 of 2022
Ram Krishna Tiwary ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu at Medininagar, Palamau
4. The Block Development Officer, Pandu, Palamau ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, AC to Sr. SC-II
-----
Order No. 05 Dated: 17.07.2023
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of
direction upon the concerned respondents to pay arrears of salary as
well as retiral benefits to the petitioner within a specified period.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was initially appointed in the year 1989 as 'Conductor' in the Bihar State
Road Transport Corporation (BSRTC) at Bankipur (Bihar). Sometime in
the year 1995, the petitioner was transferred to the office of the
Divisional Manager, BSRTC at Ranchi. Thereafter, the services of the
petitioner were placed in the office of the Block Development Officer,
Pandu, Palamau as 'Peon'. Subsequently, on 06.08.2021, he was again
transferred to Dumka Division of the BSRTC. Finally, he retired from the
service on 31.12.2013. The list of employees working in the BSRTC was
prepared by the Divisional Manager, Dumka Division on 09.05.2012,
wherein the name of the petitioner was mentioned at Sl. No. 33 (a copy
of the said list has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition).
The petitioner, after his superannuation, requested the respondents for
payment of arrears of salary as well as retiral benefits, however, the
same remained unresponded.
3. It is further submitted that the Department of Transport,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi has issued resolution as contained in
memo no. 24 dated 17.01.2022 in pursuance of judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 337 of 2001 and other
analogous cases and, therefore, the respondents are required to
consider the petitioner's request for payment of arrears of salary as well
as the retiral benefits in terms with the said resolution.
4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, AC to Sr. SC-II appearing on behalf of
the respondents, submits that if the petitioner prefers a fresh
representation on the present issue before the respondent no. 2, an
appropriate decision will be taken within a timeframe.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to
prefer a fresh representation in this regard before the respondent no. 2
along with the relevant documents. On receipt of the said
representation, the respondent no. 2, after verifying the relevant record,
shall take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law
within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid
liberty and direction.
Manish (Rajesh Shankar, J.)
