Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 305 (PAT)

Gautam Deo Singh v. State Of Bihar

2006-04-10

J.N.BHATT, S.N.HUSSAIN

body2006
Judgment 1. After having heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances stated in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. The application for condonation of delay, therefore, shall stand allowed and the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal shall stand condoned. 2. Rule is made absolute. No costs. 3. The question involved in this Letters Patent Appeal by invocation of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is as to whether the voluntary retirement sought and granted is shown to be in any way coloured or influenced or vitiated on account of pressure tactics by the respondent Master which came to be accepted by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 15346 of 2004 filed by the petitioner and came to be decided on 15.2.2006. 4. Apart from the question of disputed aspects of the controversy raised, whether the allegation of extraction of voluntary retirement by the Master is justifiable or not can very well be appreciated in the light of the factual profile of the case on hand for which we have evaluated the factual aspects, as well as, heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties and examined and appreciated the text and tenor of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. 5. Let there be a short conspectus of the factual profile leading to the rise of this Letters Patent Appeal. The appellant-original petitioner who served as an Assistant in the Bihar School Examination Board and according to the service records was scheduled to superannuate on 31.1.2005, had filed a writ petition assailing the office order bearing memo No. 2466 dated 30.10.2004, whereby, the petitioner came to be permitted to superannuate voluntarily with effect from 31.10.2004. He had, also, challenged in the writ petition the order of the respondent authority being memo No. 24 67 passed on 30.10.2004, whereby, 25 per cent of his honorarium amount had been directed to be deducted. 6. He had, also, challenged in the writ petition the order of the respondent authority being memo No. 24 67 passed on 30.10.2004, whereby, 25 per cent of his honorarium amount had been directed to be deducted. 6. The respondent authority has, inter alia, contended that the original petitioner, appellant before us, had voluntarily submitted an application on 30.10.2004 to the Chairman of the Board requesting him to accord permission for his voluntary retirement forthwith and in pursuance thereof the request came to be accepted and the impugned two orders came to be recorded by the respondent authority. The State, also, while supporting the two impugned orders and upheld by the learned Single Judge has contended that though the original petitioner was required to serve the Government with notice of three months prior to the effective date of his voluntary retirement in terms of the Rules, the Government authority had been pleased to waive such requirement. 7. The question which emerged for consideration before the learned Single Judge has been as to whether the version of the original petitioner employee that the voluntary retirement was extracted was correct or the version of the other side that such an application was tendered by the original petitioner and the Government obliged him immediately was correct. 8. Upon consideration and evaluation of the facts, as well as, the proposition of Rule, the learned Single Judge after making detail observations and, particularly, the observations in paragraph 6 of the judgment which are very material which we have carefully scrutinised and examined, reached to the conclusion that the petition was meritless which prompted the original petitioner to invoke Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and hence this Letters Patent. 9. We have, upon consideration of the entire facts and documents on record, as well as, the Rule provision and, particularly, Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952, as well as, the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, found that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is quite justified requiring no interference of this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code, undoubtedly, provides a voluntary retirement, as well as, compulsory retirement upon service of three months notice or in lieu thereof salary of three months in either case by the interested party to the either side. 10. In the present case, since the voluntary retirement was sought which came to be accepted waiving three months notice period and in the light of the peculiar observations made in paragraph 6 as observed by us herein above in the impugned judgment, we are satisfied that this Letters Patent Appeal is without any substance and merit and deserves to the dismissed summarily. 11. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal shall stand dismissed.