0

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 

Click Here To View Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat