Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 318 (PAT)

Ram Naresh Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2006-04-17

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2006
Judgment 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming arrears of salaries for various period starting from October 1999 to February 1999 till he retired in July, 2001 and also for difference of pay in the revised pay scale from February, 1998 to May, 1999. During the pendency of the writ petition he has been paid various amounts as per his own admission in the supplementary affidavit filed by him and only an amount of Rs. 24,793/- being difference of pay in the revised pay scale from February, 1998 to July, 2001 remains to be paid to him. 2. The stand of the respondents is that with respect to the said remaining amount the District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda has already written to the Director (Primary Education) on 30.3.2006 for additional allotment and the payment shall be made to the petitioner as soon as he shall receive it. In view of the said stand of the respondents the Director (Primary Education) is directed to ensure that the necessary allotment is immediately made and the amounts are paid to the petitioner within six weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. 3. Further plea has been taken by the petitioner that on account of lumpsum payment of arrears of salary starting from 1998 having been made in the year, 2005 an amount of Rs. 35,000/- has been deducted towards income tax and if the said amount was paid at the appropriate time then no Income Tax would have been deducted and also some part of the said amount would have been deposited in the G.P.F. in which he would have earned interest at the rate of 12% per annum as well as the Income Tax rebate on amount of the deposit in the G.P.F. amount. By order dated 6.3.2006 this Court directed the respondents to file supplementary counter affidavit to deal with this aspect of the matter. The stand taken by the respondent no. 3 in the counter, affidavit filed by him is that there is a provision for refund of excess tax incorporated under Income Tax Act and if the petitioner furnishes yearwise details of his salary to the Income Tax Department the tax paid in excess shall be refunded to the petitioner subject to the rules framed under the Income Tax Act. 3 in the counter, affidavit filed by him is that there is a provision for refund of excess tax incorporated under Income Tax Act and if the petitioner furnishes yearwise details of his salary to the Income Tax Department the tax paid in excess shall be refunded to the petitioner subject to the rules framed under the Income Tax Act. The plea raised by the respondents, to say the least, is specious and callous and it was for the respondent authorities to have ensured that tax deduction at the time of payment of lumpsum amount was made after obtaining the relevant figures from the petitioner with respect to his salary for the years in question so that only the appropriate amount of tax would be deducted from source. On account of their callous attitude petitioner has been put to further harassment of obtaining refund of the Income Tax for no fault on his part, since there is no indication in the counter affidavit that the delay in payment of arrears of salary was on account of default of the petitioner, rather it is admitted that the amounts could not be paid in time on account of the absence of allocation of funds during the relevant period. 4. Regarding the loss of interest on account of non-deduction of G.P.F. amount it is stated by the respondents that the petitioner is himself drawing and disbursing officer and therefore any loss on this count is the responsibility of the petitioner himself. There is force in the contention of the respondents and the petitioner accordingly would not be entitled to any relief on this count. 5. However, since the respondents have been found guilty of negligence and callousness with regard to the payment of arrears of salary as also in the making of excessive deduction on account of income tax from the amounts of arrears of salary paid in the year, 2005 the respondents are directed to pay exemplary cost Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner to compensate him for the loss as well as harassment suffered by him on account of such action of the respondents. Needless to say that the State authorities would be entitled to realise the said amount from the officers/employees who are found guilty in this regard. 6. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above with the directions and observations made above.