Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 2594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.
Arjun Prasad Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand State Electricity Board - Respondent
Writ Petition (S) No. 1039 of 2014
Decided On : 01-10-2018
Dhananjay Kr Pathak, Adv., Sweta Rani, Adv., Shashi Kant Mishra, Adv., Naina Mishra, Adv., Mukesh Kr Sinha, Adv., Amitabh, Adv., Dheeraj Kumar, Adv.
The court emphasized the role of the competent authority in addressing the petitioner's grievances within a specified period, without making final comments on the merits of the claims.
Headnote:
Relief - Petitioner's Grievances - The court directed the competent authority to address the petitioner's grievances, including the refund of a withheld amount, interest on provident fund, and the pending departmental inquiry, within a specified period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Assistant Electrical Engineer, sought relief for various grievances, including refund of a withheld amount, interest on provident fund, and resolution of a pending departmental inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the competent authority to address the petitioner's grievances within a specified period, emphasizing that it had not made any final comments on the merits of the petitioner's claims.
Issues: Refund of withheld amount, interest on provident fund, resolution of pending departmental inquiry
Ratio Decidendi: The competent authority was directed to address the petitioner's grievances within a specified period, with the court refraining from making final comments on the merits of the claims.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, with the competent authority instructed to address the petitioner's grievances within a specified period.
JUDGMENT
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner who superannuated from the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub Division, Loyabad on 31.12.2012, has approached this Court inter-alia for multiple relief (s).
i. Refund of amount of 75,350/- said to be illegally recovered as temporary advance paid to him.
ii. For the benefits of MACP as 131 similarly situated persons have been granted the same.
iii. For appropriate decision in the Inquiry Proceeding pending against him at the verge of retirement.
iv. Payment of statutory interest on GPF.
v. For sanction of full pension with effect from 01.01.2013 as only provisional pension is being paid @90%
vi. For release of one increment due on 01.07.2012.
vii. For interest on arrears of salary for certain period from 01.06.2011 to 31.12.2012 amounting to Rs. 8,07,701/-. Petitioner has also claimed interest over all unpaid amounts.
3. The Respondent Nigam filed counter affidavit on 23.07.2015, to which rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, another supplementary affidavit was filed by the Respondent on 01.09.2016 and lastly, supplementary counter affidavit was filed on 25.09.2018, para-4 thereof depicts admissible dues paid to him, which are as under:
i. GPF amounting to Rs. 9,25,981.00 vide no. 398414 dated 26.12.2013
ii. Gratuity amounting to Rs. 10,00,000.00 vide cheque no. 756335 dated 10.03.2017
iii. Pension Arrear amounting Rs. 2,95,171.00 vide cheque no. 417928 dated 19.05.2017
iv. The petitioner was not the member of group saving therefore he is not entitled of G.S.S 2.
v. Leave encashment to the petitioner has not been paid as yet and it has to be sanctioned and paid from the office of the GM-Cum-CE, Electric Supply Area, Dhanbad.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that three grievances is still subsisting even now, one relating to refund of Rs. 75,350/- withheld as against temporary advance made to him earlier. Petitioner contends that he had submitted all necessary vouchers, etc. in the office, but the matter got stuck at the level of Accountant of the Nigam, second relating to interest on GPF amount which was paid after considerable delay of one year since his retirement i.e. 26.12.2013 and the third relating to release of one increment which has been withheld.
5. Counsel for the Respondent Nigam has specific answer to each of these claims. He submits that if the petitioner submits all vouchers with due explanation of the expenditure undertaken towards the temporary advance before the competent authority, his claim of refund can be processed and finalized within a time period. He further submits that papers relating to release of provident fund were submitted after seven months in July 2013 by the petitioner, where-after his claim of provident fund was processed and paid in December 2013. He points out that Inquiry Report was submitted in respect of pending Departmental Inquiry before the competent authority, who would take a decision thereupon and depending upon that decision, increment if admissible, would be released to him.
6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the relevant material facts borne on record and noted above. Majority of the grievances of the petitioner are apparently redressed, as per his own admission. For rest of his grievance relating to release of an amount of Rs. 75,350/-, he should make a representation before the competent authority / Respondent No. 5 through the channel of Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Chatra (Respondent No. 6). Such representation together with all supporting documents be examined by the competent authority / Respondent No. 5 on its receipt in accordance with law and if the claim is found admissible, the amount withheld be released thereafter in accordance with law. If it is rejected, a reasoned order be passed and communicated to the petitioner. Claim for statutory interest on provident fu
