Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 530 (JHR)

Anto Tudu v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-04-29

TAPEN SEN

body2002
ORDER 1. Heard Mr. R.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P. Vidyarthi, learned JC to SC II, flies counter-affidavit in the Court. Let it be accepted. Mr. S. Srivastava appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5. 2. The facts narrated in this writ application and the statement made in counter-affidavit has veritably shocked the conscience of this Court. The petitioner, an ordinary and a petty retired Teacher of the Primary School. Anchal Mahgama in the district of Godda (then district of Sahebganj), retired on 31.1.1983 from his services of the then State of Bihar, almost 20 years ago (19 years and 4 months to be precise). This poor and helpless senior citizen of our country has stated that he was paid only provisional pension from 1.2.1983 to 1995 and thereafter payment of even provisional pension was stopped. He sent representations after representations and the respondents apparently went on telling him that his service book was not available and therefore, his pension was not being fixed. The petitioner has stated at paragraph 8 that he and his family members are facing starvation. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4, the District Superintendent of Education, Godda, it has been accepted/ admitted, inter alia, that the petitioner did retire as a Teacher from the Primary School in the year 1983 and that Godda became a district in the year 1986 and Mahgama became a part of the new Godda district. They have also admitted that the service book of the petitioner remained with the District Superintendent of Education at Sahebganj and despite best efforts of the District Superintendent of Education, Godda (deponent), the said service book could not be braced out. 4. This respondent has further stated that a new service book has now been prepared and the same has been sent along with pension papers to the Accountant General, Bihar and Jharkhand by letter dated 20.4.2002 for fixation of final pension and gratuity. At paragraph 13, it has also been admitted that the provisional pension had been stopped after 1995 for the same reason, i.e. nonavailability of service book. 5. The deponent to the counter-affidavit has stated that he has sanctioned the payment of arrears of the provisional pension Rs. At paragraph 13, it has also been admitted that the provisional pension had been stopped after 1995 for the same reason, i.e. nonavailability of service book. 5. The deponent to the counter-affidavit has stated that he has sanctioned the payment of arrears of the provisional pension Rs. 205/- per month from January, 1996 to March, 2002, and the payment of the approved DA has also been sanctioned, and that the Headmaster of the concerned Primary School, who is the Drawing and Disbursing Authority, has been directed to make necessary payment. 6. The counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 4 (the District Superintendent of Education, Godda) does not in any way impress this Court, because it is not out of charity that he has done what he has claimed to have done. Pension, gratuity and post-retiral benefits are not bounties. None of the respondents had any business to withhold the pensionary benefits of this senior citizen of our country for almost 20 years. These respondents have, therefore, made themselves liable to be proceeded against departmentally. The Secretary of the concerned department shall immediately deal with this matter and identify the erring officers and shall initiate whatever departmental action that is required to be taken in accordance with law because prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the kind of action that has been perpetrated upon this helpless petitioner amounts to gross dereliction of duty. 7. The respondents are, therefore, directed to forthwith calculate the entire amount payable to the petitioner together with 12% interest thereon and pay the entire amount to him by cheque or draft within a period of ten days from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, failing which appropriate action under the Contempt of Courts Act shall be Initiated against the erring officials. 8. In view of the fact that the petitioner has suffered immensely for almost 19 and a half years, and also in view of the fact that there is clear admission on the part of the respondent No. 4 that even his provisional pension had been stopped after 1995, obviously goes to show that the petitioner was subjected to immense agony and mental torture, which as a Court of Equity, this Court cannot ignore. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to pay compensation to the petitioner, which is quantified at Rs. one lac (Rs. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to pay compensation to the petitioner, which is quantified at Rs. one lac (Rs. 1 lac). The same should also be paid to the petitioner within the same period of ten days as indicated above by cheque or draft. 9. With the aforesaid directions/observations, this writ application is allowed. 10. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. Vidyarthi, learned JC to SC I and to Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.