Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 390 (PAT)

Govind Madhav Jha v. State Of Bihar

2000-03-08

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2000
Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner retired from the services of the State from the post of Under Secretary, but was not paid total retiral benefits. Being aggrieved, he preferred C.W.J.C. No. 238 of 1996 for payment of retiral benefits, which was disposed of along with other cases on 17th October, 1996 in terms with general direction given in the case of Most. Rukmini Devi reported in 1996 (1) PLR 363. 2. Total retiral benefits having not paid, the present contempt application was preferred, alleging willful, deliberate dis-obedience of Courts order by the opposite parties. 3. In the show-cause, opposite parties while, tendered unqualified apology gave details of step taken for payment of benefits. 4. Admittedly, the total benefits have been paid by opposite parties except 5% of pension. The opposite parties have taken plea that 5% of pension has been with-held under Rule 139-B of Bihar Pension Rules for which show-cause notice was issued on 24th October, 1994 and final order passed on 7th June, 1997. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner, was a member of Bihar Administrative Service, his appointing authority is the State of Bihar. Under Rule 139-B, as the power is delegated with the sanctioning authority, which is the State of Bihar in the case of petitioner, no pension can be withheld in absence of specific order by the State of Bihar. 6. From the notice dated 24th October, 1994, it appeals that the same was not issued by the State of Bihar (by order of the Governor of Bihar) nor the order of withheldment dated 7th June, 1997 was issued by the State. In the aforesaid background, on the basis of such order, it was not open for the opposite parties to with-held 5% of the pension. 7. This apart, the Rule 139-B does not stipulate withheldment/curtailment of pension, as provided under Rule 43-B of the Pension Rules. The pension can be reduced under Rule 139-B by the sanctioning authority, if the total service is not found to be satisfactory. 8. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the service record of the petitioner was unsatisfactory. On the other hand, from the show-cause notice dated 24th October, 1994, it appears that the curtailment of 5% pension made alleging violation of rules of executive business in the matter of forwarding file to the Minister-in-charge of the department. 8. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the service record of the petitioner was unsatisfactory. On the other hand, from the show-cause notice dated 24th October, 1994, it appears that the curtailment of 5% pension made alleging violation of rules of executive business in the matter of forwarding file to the Minister-in-charge of the department. The aforesaid ground shown in the showcause dated 24th October, 1994 having not reflected in the service record, the authority has no jurisdiction even to lower down the pension under Rule 139-B of the Bihar Pension Rules. 9. However, there being no deliberate, wilful latches on the part of the opposite parties, instead of proceeding against them, I give them opportunity to release and to pay rest of the 5% pension in favour of the petitioner within two months, failing which the State will be liable to pay 10% penal interest thereon to be counted from the date of retirement till the same is being paid. 10. In such case, it will be also open to the petitioner to bring the fact to the notice of this Court for initiation of proceeding for contempt against the Erring Officer/person. 11. The M.J.C. application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.