Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26430 (JHR)

TEKEYA DEVI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

WPC/5238/2018 · 2025-09-23

Deepak Roshan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:29487 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 5238 of 2018 ------- 1. Tekeya Devi, wife of late Birbal Ray 2. Chabi Roy, s/o. late Birbal Ray 3. Kelu Roy, s/o. late Birbal Ray 4. Pappu Roy, s/o. late Birbal Ray. All residents of village Kachua, P.O. Nonihat, P.S. Hansdiha, Distt. Dumka, Jharkhand. ……….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, Distt. Dumka, Pin-814151, Jharkhand. 3. Circle Officer, Saraiyahat, P.O. & P.S. Saraiyahat, Dist. Dumka, Pin-814151, Jharkhand 4. Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Distt. Ranchi, Pin-834002, Jharkhand. ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Chandan Tiwari, AC to GA-I Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate ---- 19/ 23.09.2025 The instant writ application was preferred by the petitioners praying therein for direction upon the respondent-authorities to pay amount of un-utilized earned leave of deceased employee, who died on 03.08.2020. 2. It has been informed by learned counsel for the respondents that entire legitimate dues have already been paid to the present petitioners, which is also apparent from paras-11 and 12 of the counter-affidavit filed on 22.12.2023. For brevity, paras-11 and 12 of the counter-affidavit is extracted herein below: “11. That the petitioner's mother, Gango Devi, wife of deceased Choukidar Atwari Ray, has been paid Rs. 23569.00 in Group Insurance. 12. That so far as G.P.F is concerned, there is no deduction in G.P.F and as such, not paid earlier. The petitioner has also been paid Rs. 33,176.00 vide Letter No. 322 dated 25.05.2019 for other benefits and correspondence has been made to A. G. Ranchi for payment of other benefits.” 2025:JHHC:29487 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 4. Since the grievance of the petitioners has been redressed, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 23rd September, 2025 Kunal