Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 648 (PAT)

Baleshwar Mishra v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2003-07-03

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing of a portion of the order dated 27.7.1999 whereby the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board (for short the Board) had decided that the period between 1.10.1997 to 31.1.1999 shall be counted for the purpose of post retiral benefit but the petitioner shall not be entitled for the salary for the said period. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner joined the service of the Board as skilled Khalasi on 25th of January, 1964. His claim is that his date of birth is 8th of April, 1939. Respondent-Board by its order dated 30th of November, 1997, treating his date of birth to be 8th of April,1930 superannuated him from service with retrospective effect from 30th of April, 1990. Petitioner aggrieved by the same preferred a writ application before this Court which was registered as CWJC No. 4052 of 1998 (Baleshwar Mishra V/s. Chairman,Bihar State Electricity Board and others) and a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 30.3.1999 disposed of the writ application with a direction to dispose of the representation filed by the union on behalf of the petitioner in relation to his grievance of retiring him prematurely. In the light of the aforesaid direction by the impugned order the petitioner has been directed to retire from service on 31.1.1999. However, while passing the said order it has paid salary from 1.10.1997 to 31.1.1999 but the said period shall be counted for the purpose of the post retiral benefits. As stated earlier by order dated 30.9.1997 petitioner was directed to retire with retrospective effect from 30th of April, 1990 and on account thereof he has not performed any duty thereafter. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that once the date of retirement of the petitioner has been fixed as 31.1.1999 and the respondent-Board having allowed the benefit of service till the said date for the purpose of retirement, there is no justification to deny the petitioner the salary for the said period. 4. Mr. R.K. Datta however, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that as the petitioner has not worked for the period for which he is claiming salary and the dispute in relation to the date of birth being bonafide petitioner is not entitled for the salary for the said period. 5. 4. Mr. R.K. Datta however, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that as the petitioner has not worked for the period for which he is claiming salary and the dispute in relation to the date of birth being bonafide petitioner is not entitled for the salary for the said period. 5. True it is that the petitioner had not worked for the period for which he is claiming the salary. The Board earlier directed for the retirement of the petitioner with effect from 30th of April, 1999 but on a representation filed by him his date of retirement has been shifted to 31st of January, 1999, for which blame cannot be attributed to the petitioner. None-the-less petitioner has not worked for this period. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that 50 per cent of the salary for the aforesaid period i.e. 1.10.1997 to 31.1.1999 shall be just and proper. 6. Let respondents pay to the petitioner 50 per cent of the salary for the period 1.10.1997 to 31.1.1999 within three months less the amount of pension, if any, paid for that period. Impugned order dated 27.7.1999 is modified to the extent indicated above. 7. Application stands allowed in the aforesaid term. No. costs.