RAM KUMAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed against the order dated 04.08.2007 passed in W.P. (S) No. 7350 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant declining to quash the order dated 20.11.2006 whereby the 3rd respondent-District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ranchi directed to make payment of half of the retiral benefits to the 5th respondent-Srimati Saroj Devi who is the sister of the appellant. Late Ram Naryan Dubey who was working as Panchayat Sevak in the Panchayat Office, Ranchi retired on 31.03.1997 and he died on 22.11.2005 leaving behind the son (appellant) and the married daughter - respondent No. 5 namely, Srimati Saroj Devi. After the death of his father, the appellant made several representations to the concerned respondent to make payment of gratuity and other retiral benefits payable to the Late Ram Narayan Dubey. Earlier, the 5th respondent filed W.P. (S) No. 4705 of 2006 seeking direction upon the respondents for payment of half of the retiral dues of Ram Narayan Dubey. In the earlier writ petition, the Court has directed to 3rd respondent to look into the grievances of the petitioner and take a decision within a period of six weeks from the receipt of the copy of the order. It was further directed that if the respondent No. 5 is found entitled to get monetary benefit the same must be paid within a period of six weeks thereafter and if the benefit found payable to the 5th respondent was not paid to her, she will be entitled Co get interest @ 10% over and above any statutory interest payable on delayed payment of such dues.

(2.) In compliance of the direction of the Court in W.P. (S) No. 4705 of 2006, the 3rd respondent conducted an inquiry and vide order dated 20.11.2006, observed that the 5th respondent is entitled to get the retiral benefits and directed for the payment of the half of the amount to the appellant and the half to the 5th respondent.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2006, the appellant filed the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 7350 of 2006 and sought for quashing the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the 3rd respondent. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge held that the impugned order dividing the pension and the gratuity in equal shares between the appellant and the 5th respondent is fully in accordance with law and that the said order does not suffer from any error of law warranting interference. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.