Jharkhand High Court
Kishalay Chatterjee vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 17 February, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 398 of 2020
----------
Kishalay Chatterjee .......... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of
Higher and Technological Education, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Department of Higher and Technological Education,
Ranchi.
3. The Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi.
4. The Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi.
5. The Principal, Ranchi Women's College, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijayant Verma, Advocate
For the Resp. : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA-III
Mr. Atul Rai, Advocate
----------
12/ 17.02.2024 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon
the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of death-cum-retiral
benefits.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
though her wife, working as a Laboratory Incharge in Ranchi Women's
College, Ranchi died on 02.01.2006 but the death-cum-retiral benefits have
been extended to the petitioner in the year 2019 i.e. almost after lapse of 13
years. Learned counsel further submits that though several representations
were filed but no heed was paid and respondents have denied to pay interest
on delayed payment. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel places
heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of
Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari [Civil
Appeal No. 399 of 2021 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 12553/2020], wherein
it is held that salaries and pensions are "rightful entitlements" of
government employees and in case of delay, they should be paid with
interest at an appropriate rate. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that suffice it would be if a direction is given to the petitioner to file
fresh representation for redressal of his grievances and upon receipt of the
same, respondents may be directed to pass reasoned order on his
representation within a stipulated period of time.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
very fairly submits that if this Court directs the petitioner to file fresh
representation before the respondent-authorities, the respondents shall pass
reasoned order on the same.
5. In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
I hereby direct the petitioner 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 respondents shall consider the same in
accordance with law, taking into consideration the prevalent rules,
guidelines and legal propositions as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court passed in case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs. Dinavahi
Lakshmi Kameswari [Civil Appeal No. 399 of 2021 (arising out of
SLP(C) No. 12553/2020] and thereafter pass a speaking and reasoned
order, within a further period of six weeks, which shall also be
communicated to the petitioner.
6. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found entitled for the
benefits, as prayed for, the same may be extended to him within a further
period of four weeks.
7. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
kunal/-
