Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1126 (JHR)

Nemi Chand Vijay v. State Of Bihar

2003-09-10

TAPEN SEN

body2003
ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. At the outset, Mr. Ram Kishore Prasad prays that he may be allowed to implead Slate of Jharkhand as respondent No. 7. Let him do so. 2. Heard Mr. Ram Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradip Modi, learned - I. 3. In this writ application, the petitioner has made a prayer for issuance of an appropriate direction upon the respondents for payment of 18% interest plus costs of litigation for depriving the petitioner for three years in the matter in relation to his receiving pension. He has also made a prayer for payment of compensation to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands) for mental torture and agony to which the petitioner was subjected. The facts of this case are necessary to be taken note of and from the pleadings made in the writ application, following facts would appear. 4. The petitioner retired on 01.02.1984 from the post of Under Secretary from the office of Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and he received pension regularly from the patna Secretariat Treasury up to October, 1991. Thereafter, on account of his shifting of his residence to Ranchi, the petitioner filed an application before the Treasury Officer, Patna Secretariat in October, 1991 itself requesting that his pension papers be transferred to the concerned Treasury Office at Ranchi. The petitioner has stated that since he could not oblige the respondent No. 5 (meaning thereby the Treasury Officer at Patna), the papers were not transmitted to the office of the Treasury Officer at Ranchi and it was done only on 22.05.1992 when all papers were received in the Treasury Office at Ranchi. The petitioner has stated that in the Treasury office at Ranchi, there was a person called Shri Basant Babu who was the incharge of the pension cases and since the petitioner could not oblige him, therefore the said Basant Babu deliberately and wilfully caused the papers belonging to the petitioner to be lost. Consequently, on 10.11.1992, the petitioner informed the Treasury Officer, Ranchi that he was not receiving pension and therefore he requested him to look into the matter and do the needful. 5. Consequently, on 10.11.1992, the petitioner informed the Treasury Officer, Ranchi that he was not receiving pension and therefore he requested him to look into the matter and do the needful. 5. On 15.12.1993, the Treasury Officer, Ranchi wrote a letter to the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna admitting the facts that the papers relating to the petitioner have been lost in the Ranchi Treasury itself and action was being taken against the concerned Assistant. Accordingly, a request was made by the Treasury Officer, Ranchi to send duplicate of the papers in relation to the petitioner to his office. This letter is marked Annexure-2 to the writ application. On the same day, the Treasury Officer, Ranchi sent another letter to the Treasury Officer, Patna vide Annexure-3 requesting details in relation to the rates at which the petitioner used to receive pension from the Patna office. 6. Consequently, by letter dated 16.03.1994, the Treasury Officer, Patna informed his counterpart at Ranchi that payment of pension to the petitioner has been made by State Bank of India, Secretariat Branch, Patna up to September, 1991 and along with that letter, a certificate issued by the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Patna Secretariat was enclosed showing that he had received the sum of Rs. 1,595/- as pension up to September, 1991 and that the 8th and final instalment of Rs. 434/- towards arrear of revision of pension from 01.03.1989 to 31.03.1990 was also due and payable to the petitioner. 7. Subsequently, the Senior Account Officer, Bihar, Patna as also the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna issued duplicate authorities of pension in respect of the petitioner and by letter dated 08/ 22.04.1994, the Senior Accounts Officer informed and requested the Treasury Officer, Ranchi to arrange the payment of pension to the petitioner. It was thereafter that on 11.07.1994 and 01.08.1994, the petitioner received the sums of Rs. 49,445/- and Rs. 22,452/- being his pension for the period November, 1991 to July, 1994. 8. It is in the backdrop of the aforementioned facts narrated by the petitioner that he has come to this Court and has filed this writ application making a grievance that from November, 1991 to July, 1994 i.e. two years eight months ap-prox, the petitioner went without pension and suffered both mental torture and anguish. 8. It is in the backdrop of the aforementioned facts narrated by the petitioner that he has come to this Court and has filed this writ application making a grievance that from November, 1991 to July, 1994 i.e. two years eight months ap-prox, the petitioner went without pension and suffered both mental torture and anguish. The petitioner has further stated that in the mean time his wife had sustained burn injury and accordingly, she had to be admitted to the Ispat Hospital where she incurred costs of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) for her treatment which he could meet only by taking loans at the rate of interest of 25%. 9. Consequently, on 27.12.1994, by Annexure-12, he made a demand that he should be paid 18% interest per annum and damages which would be quantified later on. 10. This case appears to have an interesting career in as much as it was filed on 02.03.1995 and on 09.03.1995. an Honble Single Judge of the Patna High Court heard the matter and reserved judgment. Thereafter, on 14.03.1995 an order was passed wherein the said Honble Single Judge came to the conclusion that "prima facie, there appears to be some substance in the grievance of the petitioner as it appears that the petitioner has been kept deprived of his due pension of the period November, 1991 to July, 1994 till the final payment was made on 01.08.1994 for the fault in the office of the Treasury Officers concerned." 11. However, and as was requested by the learned Government Pleader No. 1, he was, given an opportunity to seek in-structiops and file counter affidavit and the matter was adjourned till 27th March, 1995 and it was made clear that if no counter affidavit was filed, the matter would be finally disposed off on the next date on the basis of the materials available on record and no further adjournment shall be given. 12. It appears that thereafter on 05.04.1995, the writ application was dismissed and the following order was passed : "In this writ application the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to pay the interest, cost as per retirement benefits has been paid to the petitioner after the lapse of more than three years. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclie to entertain this writ application which is accordingly-dismissed." 13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclie to entertain this writ application which is accordingly-dismissed." 13. Against the aforementioned order, the petitioner filed an L.P.A. and by judgment dated 03.04.2002, the Division Bench held that the matter required reconsideration and accordingly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Single Judge for passing a fresh order. It is thereafter that this matter was again listed whereafter the same appears to have dismissed again for default but upon restoration thereof, the matter has been placed before this Court. 14. The parties have made their submissions and they have all suggested that the matter be disposed off at this stage itself. 15. From a perusal of the records of this case including the order dated 14.03.1995, it appears that one of us had definitely come to a conclusion that there was fault on the part of the concerned respondents which deprived the petitioner from receiving his pension for the period November, 1991 to February, 1994 and which he could receive only after efforts were made in reconstituting his papers which were lost in the office of the Treasury Officer at Ranchi after they were received from Patna. 16. It also appears that opportunity was given to the State-Respondents to file counter affidavit but they chose not to do so and even before the Appellate Court, the Division Bench recorded that fact at paragraph 3 that no counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondent-State. 17. Today when the case was called out, this Court has not been able to find out any counter affidavit that appears to have been filed nor has the learned G.P. -I been able to show that a counter affidavit was filed in this case. Consequently, this Court has no option but to accept the pleadings which have been made in the writ application and also agree with the findings of the earlier Honble Single Judge to the effect that there was fault on the part of the respondents. 18. However, from the pleadings made in this writ application, it is apparent that the Treasury Officer, on his part made efforts and it was on account of his efforts that ultimately the duplicates were procured which enabled the respondent authorities to pay pension to the petitioner. 18. However, from the pleadings made in this writ application, it is apparent that the Treasury Officer, on his part made efforts and it was on account of his efforts that ultimately the duplicates were procured which enabled the respondent authorities to pay pension to the petitioner. It is another matter that the file should not, under any circumstances, have been allowed to be lost just like that and for that the respondents are free to Initiate action against the erring officer who was vested with the responsibility of keeping the records in safe custody. This Court however is not fastening any responsibility on anybody save and except observe that the respondents, if so desire, may initiate action in accordance with law for purposes of fastening the liability on the person for whose lapses or negligence the original papers of the petitioner were lost. 19. Be that as it may, the stark reality however is that pension and retiral dues are not bounties. A pensioner after having retired honourably and having put in his entire length of his life in the service of the respondents, is expected to be dealt with in a reasonable manner. The pension papers were received from Patna in May, 1992 and thereafter there is no explanation coming forth as to what happened up to 15.12.1993, when all of a sudden the Treasury Officer wrote to the Accountant General, Patna Informing him that his papers had been lost. In other words, even after receipt of the papers on 22.05.1992, It is obvious that the petitioner was not receiving any pension whatsoever and it took the respondent authorities almost 1-112 years to start making efforts for obtaining duplicate papers because the first letter of the Treasury Officer making such a request is dated 15.12.1993. 20. After having subjected a pensioner to such misery, and having not come forward with valid explanations, the right to life of the petitioner was certainly encroached upon because right to life does not include only the right to live but it also includes the right to live in a dignified manner. By subjecting a helpless pensioner to such a miserable condition, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities ensured a dignified living to the petitioner and that too, a helpless pensioner, who had retired ten years ago i.e. on 01.02.1984 (i.e., from the date when he started receiving pension at Ranchi). By subjecting a helpless pensioner to such a miserable condition, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities ensured a dignified living to the petitioner and that too, a helpless pensioner, who had retired ten years ago i.e. on 01.02.1984 (i.e., from the date when he started receiving pension at Ranchi). 21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to award Interest at the rate of 12% to the petitioner on his pensionary dues for the period November, 1991 to July, 1994, that he had received i.e., Rs. 49,455/-and Rs. 22,542/-. He would also be entitled to costs for enforced litigation which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand). The amounts must be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is allowed. There shall however be no order as to costs.