MD JAMRUDIN ANSARI Vs. MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has retired as as Khalasi on 31.3.2010 and he was employed with the respondents.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents submitted that now the detailed counter affidavit has been filed and as per para.4 of the counter affidavit, legally payable amount to the petitioner comes to Rs.6,96,230/ , but this amount is not being paid to the petitioner because the respondents have no sufficient fund in hand.

(3.) In view of this submission, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount stated in para.4 of the counter affidavit is not a correct calculation of the retiral benefits. The said amount is much higher than what is calculated in para.4 of the counter affidavit. The details of the calculation has been stated in para.7 of the writ petition. Nonetheless, the amount so admitted by the respondents, must be paid to the petitioner within a stipulated time and for rest of the amount, let a direction be given to respondent No.1 to decide the claim of the present petitioner in accordance with law.