Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 226 (PAT)

Dharnidhar Jha v. State Of Bihar

2000-02-09

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2000
Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner retired from the service of the State Government on 31.12,1998 while posted as Laboratory Assistant in Ganga Bridge Road Approach Division, Road Construction Department, Bhagalpur, yet his post retiraf dues were not paid and has not been finalised till date. 2. It is by now well settled that as per the Government rules/circulars the sanctioning authority is required to see that the process for finalisation of pension papers begins 15 months before retirement of a Government servant and the same must be completed on the date of his retirement. 3. In the present case, the Executive Engineer, Ganga Bridge Road Approach Division, Road Construction Department, Bhagalpur (respondent no. 5) is, admittedly, the sanctioning authority. Nothing has been brought on the record that any steps in that direction was taken by the respondent no. 5 before retirement of the petitioner. It appears that only on 8.4.1999 no dues certificate was issued by the concerned Assistant Engineer, vide Annexure 3. Thereafter on 17.6.1999, the provisional pension and gratuity were sanctioned, not as per the revised rate but at the old rate. Meanwhile, the petitioner was paid only group insurance amount on 3.6.1999 and the amount of leave encashment was paid to him on 14.8.1999 at the old rate. It is admitted by the respondents that the amount of provisional pension and gratuity was withdrawn and deposited in the official account of respondent no. 5 on 18.8.1999, but the same were not paid to the petitioner and, as such, he was compelled to file the present writ petition on 14.10.1999. 4. This Court for the first time on 14.12.1999 directed the State Counsel to take instructions and file counter affidavit. On 17.1.2000, when no counter affidavit was filed, this Court considering serious allegation made against respondent no. 5 directed for his personal appearance before this Court on 19th January, 2000. Cn the said date, the learned Government Pleader no. VI informed that respondent no. 5 was informed about the said order through wireless message dated 17.1.2000, yet he did not appear. Accordingly, this Court directed for issuance of bailable warrant of arrest for his production before this Court on 24.1.2000. 5. However, on 24.1.2000 respondent no. 5 appeared in person and in that view of the matter, the order directing for issuance of bailable warrant of arrest was recalled. Accordingly, this Court directed for issuance of bailable warrant of arrest for his production before this Court on 24.1.2000. 5. However, on 24.1.2000 respondent no. 5 appeared in person and in that view of the matter, the order directing for issuance of bailable warrant of arrest was recalled. Since thereafter the matter was adjourned twice, but till date respondent no. 5 has not bothered to produce the sanction order with respect to finalisation of pensionary dues. He, however, has produced three Bank drafts, which were prepared on 7th October, 1999, 20th December, 1999 and 21 st December, 1999, 6. Learned Government Pleader No. VI appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 has tried to explain that the petitioner was not co-operating in the matter of finalisation of pensionary dues. In this regard he referred to the letter issued by respondent no. 5 on 26.1.2000, contained in Annexure U, on which the report of Grade I Draftsman is noted that the petitioner refused to accept the said letter. 7. It is difficult to accept the said report. Vide next document annexed as Annexure U series, the petitioner himself produced the pension papers again after removing the defects pointed out by the Executive Engineer on 29.1.2000. According to the petitioner, he approached respondent no. 5 on several occasions, but he was denied even those payments which had -been encashed and deposited in the account of respondent no. 5 in August, 1999. In this regard he has also produced evidence to show that on 28th September, 1999 he went to Bhagalpur and contacted him. 8. It seems that respondent no. 5, who had appeared on the earlier occasion, showed complete ignorance about the progress made with respect to finalisation of pension as he always used to contact his Accountant to ascertain the fact. However, when this Court took serious view of the matter, respondent no. 5 filed the fifth supplementary counter affidavit today, annexing copies of the sanction orders for provisional pension, gratuity and leave encashment at the revised rate,- vide Annexure V series, issued on 8.2.2000. He has also produced copies of the bills prepared with respect to the same and sent to the Treasury on 8.2.2000. 9. However, till date even the said amount has not been paid to the petitioner and the sanction order for final pension and gratuity have also not been produced. He has also produced copies of the bills prepared with respect to the same and sent to the Treasury on 8.2.2000. 9. However, till date even the said amount has not been paid to the petitioner and the sanction order for final pension and gratuity have also not been produced. This shows most callous attitude on the part of respondent no. 5 in dealing with the legitimate claims of the petitioner. Even for the release of the. provident fund amount, it seems that only after lapse of almost two years that he referred the matter to the Superintending Engineer, Ganga Bridge Division No. 2, Bhagalpur, vide Annexure B, on 3.12.1999. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that the amount of provident fund with up to date statutory interest has been paid to the petitioner. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court finds that there was has been gross lapses on the part of respondent no. 5 in dealing with the post retiral claims of the petitioner. However, learned Government Pleader No. VI has produced three Bank drafts, referred to above, with respect to provisional gratuity, provisional pension up to November, 1999 and arrear of pay from April, 1997 to December, 1998, which are being handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. As regards the remaining claims, this Court directs respondent no. 5 to finalise the same and, if necessary, after getting the necessary approval of the concerned authorities within a week from today and release the sanction order/necessary payment within the said time. 12. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount payable to him as post retiral dues from due date till the payment has been made, besides cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand). The amount of interest and cost shall be paid within two weeks and shall be recovered from respondent no. 5. In case the order is not complied, the petitioner will be at liberty to file two pages affidavit for revival of the writ petitioner and taking appropriate action. 13. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.