Patna High Court Directed State Authorities to pay revised gratuity to the Petitioner
This Case was filled by RAJENDRA BHAGAT son of late Jhapsi Bhagat Resident of MohallaCharch Road, chandwara Ward No. 45, Muzaffarpur, Police Station- Town, District- Muzaffarpur against the State of Bihar. The Judgment in Rajendra Bhagat v. State of Bihar (Citation: CWJC No.5116 of 2021) was passed by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The petitioner in this case sought the Court to direct the Respondents to pay to the petitioner the amount of revised gratuity in A.C.P./M.A.C.P. Scale, Rs. 5200-20200/ (G.P. Rs. 2400/-). Further to ask the Respondents to pay to the amount of revised unutilised leave encashment in ACP/MACP Scale Rs. 5200-20200/-(Grade Pay Rs. 2400/-and also to pay to the petitioner the amount of Part G.I. with interest.
Moving ahead the petitioner also wants the Court to command the Respondents to pay to the petitioner the amount of difference of Pension from 01.08.2000 to February, 2019 in ACP/MACP Scale Rs. 5200-20,200/- and the amount of difference of salary from march, 1989 to July, 2000 in ACP/MACP scale Rs. 5200-20200/-
At last to pay to the petitioner the amount of interest of gratuity and pension by the Government Circular bearing No. P-C-2116179/3155 dated 07.11.1981 and pay penal interest upon the entire dues from the dates they became due till dates of respective payment.
JUDGEMENT:
The Court after going through the arguments observed that the relief sought by the Petitioner was supported by representation and hence, the concerned authority was ordered to redress the petitioner’s grievance in considering the representation read with service particulars and ACP/MACP Rules or Scheme. Further the court held that in case the petitioner is eligible necessary order shall be passed including grant of monetary benefits and in case they are not speaking order shall be passed as to why the petitioner is not entitled to ACP/MACP pay-scale and consequential benefits and communicate the decision to the petitioner.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: AKANKSHA