Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 288 (JHR)

Biriya Bhagat v. State Of Bihar

2001-04-25

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned JC to Additional Advocate General. 2. Reference may be made to the order dated 19.5.2000, which reads as under : "I have come across several cases where employees after superannuation received all the retiral benefits without any objection and thereafter raises frivolous claims regarding promotion, date of superannuation, payment of difference salary and other benefits. In the instant case, petitioner retired in 1985 and this writ application filed after 15 years claiming P.F. Amount. Group Insurance, Gratuity, Pension etc. If the P.F. Amount, Group Insurance, Gratuity and Pension has not been paid to the petitioner then it is very serious case in which respondents must be penalised. But if all the claims have been paid to the petitioner and the petitioner claims his date of birth should have been 1927 instead of 1926 and therefore after making such correction difference of amount should be calculated and the same shall be paid then it will be a frivolous claim and in such case petitioner should be penalised and he should be punished by imposing heavy cost. Learned J.C. to G.P. 1 is directed to inform this Court that after superannuation in 1985 petitioner has been paid P.F. Amount. Group Insurance. Gratuity and Pension etc. Put up this case after four weeks." 3. In spite of the aforesaid order, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents specially by the District Superintendent of Education. Ranchi and Lohardaga, although about one year has passed. The matter was again listed on 16.4.2001. On that day this Court passed the following order : "In spite of sufficient time allowed by this Court and instruction was sought by the Government Pleader, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely. District Superintendent of Education. Lohardaga and the District Superintendent of Educalion. Ranchi respectively have neither sent instruction nor filed any counter-affidavit. Office to issue bailable warrant of arrest against both the aforesaid officers fixing the case, day after tomorrow, i.e. 18.4.2001 for their personal appearance. Put up this case day after tomorrow, i.e. 18.4.2001 within first five cases." 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga, who did not care to file counter-affidavit for about one year, has stated in the show-cause that the letter written by the Government Pleader No. 1 and the copy of the writ application was misplaced and. Put up this case day after tomorrow, i.e. 18.4.2001 within first five cases." 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga, who did not care to file counter-affidavit for about one year, has stated in the show-cause that the letter written by the Government Pleader No. 1 and the copy of the writ application was misplaced and. therefore, counter-affidavit could not be filed. However, the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi has filed a counter- affidavit, in which he has admitted that the petitioner retired in 1985 as Assistant Teacher from Middle School Gagya within the District of Ranchi. It is further stated that the school from which the petitioner retired, at present falls within the district of Lohardaga which was earlier a Sub-division of Ranchi District and therefore, the retiral benefit is to be paid by the District Superintendent of Education. Lohardaga. It is further stated that the District Provident Fund Officer, Lohardaga made correspondence with him regarding payment of the provident fund and a challan to that effect has been passed from the Ranchi Treasury. It is further stated that he has written letters to the District Provident Fund Officer and District Superintendent of Education. Lohardaga, vide Memo No. 1526, dated 9.4.2001 and Memo No. 797, dated 22.2.2001 for payment of retiral dues. 5. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the District Superintendent of Education. Ranchi and Lohardaga were duly informed one year back by the State counsel regarding filing of this writ application and inaction on their parts for payment of retiral dues to the petitioner, who retired in 1985. These two officers did not even bother to file their counter-affidavit and did not take any step. It was only after this Court passed order on 16.4.2001, they have come with an affidavit admitting that till date the retiral dues have not been paid to the petitioner. These two officers not only failed in the discharge of their duty in the matter of payment of retiral dues to the petitioner, who retired 16 years back, but they have also ignored the order passed by this Court for filing counter-affidavit. I am, therefore, of the opinion that these two officers are not at all fit to continue in that post. These two officers namely the District Superintendent of Education. Ranchi and Lohardaga are, therefore, directed not to discharge their duty as such. I am, therefore, of the opinion that these two officers are not at all fit to continue in that post. These two officers namely the District Superintendent of Education. Ranchi and Lohardaga are, therefore, directed not to discharge their duty as such. The Director, Primary Education/Secondary Education and/or the Secretary. Education Department. Government of Jharkhand, whoever may be, are directed to immediately issue necessary order ceasing their power as District Superintendent of Education. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and Lohardaga are directed to look into the matter and take all steps in consultation with the Director, Primary Education/Secondary Education, so that all the retiral dues payable to the petitioner must be paid to him within 30 days from today. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the entire retiral dues @ 12% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of payment. The petitioner shall also be entitled to cost, which is quantified at Rs. 25,000/-. The Government of Jharkhand shall be at liberty to proceed against these two officers and fix the responsibility and also take action for recovery of the amount of cost and interest that may be paid to the petitioner. 6. Let a copy of this order be faxed to the Deputy Commissioner. Ranchi and Lohardaga. 7. Order accordingly.