Md. Badrudduja vs The H.E.C. Limited Through ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2067 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Md. Badrudduja vs The H.E.C. Limited Through ... on 28 January, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             W.P(S) No. 371 of 2025
                                                    -----
             Md. Badrudduja, S/o late Md. Abul Hassan, R/o Doranda Darjee Mohalla,
             PO & PS Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand      ... Petitioner(s).
                                       Versus
             1. The H.E.C. Limited through Chairman-cum- Managing Director,
                PO & PS: Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
             2. The Director (Personnel)/ H Q, H.E.C. Limited, PO & PS:
                Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
             3. The Director (Finance), H.E.C. Limited, PO & PS: Dhurwa,
                District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
             4. The Executive Director, HMBP, H.E.C. Limited, PO & PS:
                Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.         ... Respondent(s).


             CORAM        :SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate;

Mr. Md. Imteyaz Asraf, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sushant Kumar, JC to AG ......

03 /28.01.2025:

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was dismissed from service as he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in GR case No. 314 of 1984 vide judgment dated 30.6.1997. He further submits that ultimately in Cr. Revision No. 243 of 2007, based on compromise, the petitioner was acquitted. The dismissal of service was without initiating any departmental proceeding and is solely based on order of conviction as per the standing order of the government.

2. Mr. A.K.Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been acquitted, he is entitled to receive gratuity and other consequential benefits. He further submits that the petitioner has already approached the Chairman, HEC but no order has been passed. He lastly submits that suffice it would be if a direction be given to the Chairman, HEC to dispose of the representation of the petitioner on the aforesaid issue.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the HEC submits that if the petitioner files a fresh representation, the same will be considered and appropriate order as per law will be passed.

4. Considering the submissions made above, I direct the petitioner to file a representation before the Chairman, HEC annexing all the documents in his favour. On receipt of the said representation within four weeks, the Chairman, HEC will consider the case of the petitioner as per law and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks thereafter. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any monetary benefits the same should be extended within four weeks thereafter. If the claim of the petitioner is rejected, the reasons thereof be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.

5. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

KNR