JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON MAMTA KUMAR V/S THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

RANCHI, India, Sept. 23 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Aug. 22:

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This Civil Review Petition has been filed to review the Judgment and order dated 23.07.2019 passed by this Court in WP(S) No.7867 of 2013.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the WP(S) No.7867 of 2013 was dismissed by order dated 23.07.2019 as on that date, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the said case was dismissed considering the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand, wherein it has been stated the State of Jharkhand has taken decision on 23.07.2011 to enhance the age of superannuation / retirement from 60 to 65 years in respect of employees of State Health Cadre (Allopathic), who are working in the Medical Officers, Dental Doctors and Medical Officers of the Medical Education Cadre. It was stated that the husband of the petitioner was not a government employee, therefore, age of retirement of husband of the petitioner would not be governed by the said decision as contained in Resolution No. 283(A) dated 23.07.2011. Furthermore, the expenditure incurred on the employees of the Zila Parishad is not borne by the State of Jharkhand, only some percentage of grant on account of difference of enhancement of different pay Revision Committee are released by the Government. It was pointed out that the husband of the petitioner was not entitled for enhancement. In light of that, the writ petition was dismissed. However, in the counter affidavit, the Judgment passed in WP(S) No.1918 of 2005, WP(S) No.5443 of 2005 as well as LPA No.172 of 2006, LPA No.186 of 2006 and SLP No.4202 of 2007 have been disclosed and the same was not being brought to the knowledge of the Court. He submits that in the aforesaid proceedings, it has already been decided that the Doctors of Zila Parishad is also entitled to superannuate at the age of 65 years and that has been affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. He submits that against the order of this Court, the petitioner has moved before the Division Bench in LPA No.725 of 2019 and in view of the above facts as the Judgments of Single Judge in LPA No.172 of 2006 and LPA No.186 of 2006 and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.4202 of 2007 have not been brough to the Court, the liberty was provided to the petitioner to file the Review Petition. Thereafter, this Civil Review Petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of that, the order dated 23.07.2019 passed in WP(S) No.7867 of 2013 may kindly be recalled and the writ petition be heard afresh.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that in the said proceedings of LPA No.172 of 2006 and LPA No.186 of 2006, it has been held that the Doctors of the Zila Parishad are also entitled for the superannuation at the age of 65 years of age.

6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that only on the statement made in supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary, the Writ Petition has been dismissed, however, the fact is otherwise. The Orders passed in the two Writ Petitions, further in the LPA Court as well as the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP have not been brought to the knowledge of the Court.

7. In view of the matter, this Court finds that it is a fit case to review the order dated 23.07.2019 passed in WP(S) No.7867 of 2013. As such, the order dated 23.07.2019 passed in WP(S) No.7867 of 2013 is hereby recalled.

8. Accordingly, WP(S) No.7867 of 2013 is restored to its original file.

9. As such, this Civil Review Petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.