2025:JHHC:22815 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3266 of 2025 ------ Nihar Dhan, S/o Late Joseph Dhan, R/o Village Changa Toli, P.O. Lodhma, P.S. Karra, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 4. Area Education Officer, Angarha, P.O. & P.S. Angarha, District Ranchi. 5. Head Master, Fatima Boy’s Middle School, Hulhundu, P.O. & P.S. Namkom, District Ranchi. 6. Principal Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. AC-I Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate Ms. Suman Roy, Advocate ------ 03/ 08.08.2025 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays to refix his pension on the revised pay scale of Rs.4,500 – 125 – 7,000, in the Grade Pay as per the recommendation made in terms of the 5th Pay Revision Committee Report w.e.f. 01.01.1996. He further prays to refix his pension as the recommendation of 6th Pay Revision Committee Report in the pay scale of Rs.9,300 – 34,800, in the Pay Band of Rs.4,200/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. He also claims entitlement for the leave encashment which has not been paid to him. 3. This petitioner earlier filed W.P.(S) No.5777 of 2014 for payment of post retiral dues. During pendency of the said writ 2025:JHHC:22815 2 petition, the post retiral dues of the petitioner had been paid, thus the said writ petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. 4. The aforesaid fact clearly suggests that the petitioner is entitled for the post retiral benefits, which in fact was paid. Now, the petitioner prays for revision of the pension and payment of Earned Leave encashment, which according to the petitioner is payable in terms of the judgment passed by this Court and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mariyam Tirkey Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2014 (1) JBCJ 465. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already represented before the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, but no action has been taken. It is his contention that suffice it would be, if a direction is given to the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order on his representation. 6. Learned counsel representing the respondent – State submits that if the petitioner files a fresh representation annexing all the documents, his case will be considered and an appropriate order will be passed. 7. Considering the aforesaid submission, I direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with all the documents before the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, within a period of four weeks. 8. If such representation is filed, the concerned respondents will consider the case of the petitioner and will decide the same 2025:JHHC:22815 3 within a period of six weeks thereafter. 9. If any adverse order is passed against the claim / representation of the petitioner, the reasons thereof should be communicated to the petitioner. 10. The entire process must be concluded within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with the representation of the petitioners. 11. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-2