Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 393 (PAT)

Kamal Nath Mishra v. State Of Bihar

2008-02-25

BARIN GHOSH

body2008
Judgment 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed to the writ petition. A copy thereof was served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner on 28th July, 2006. Despite such service, no rejoinder has been filed. 3. In the writ petition the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Cashier in the P.G. Central Office of the Respondent-University on 13.3.1962 and worked till 3.3.1965 when he fell seriously ill and. accordingly, went on leave for medical treatment. In paragraph 6 of the petition, petitioner has stated that he was re-appointed on 2.1.1981 as an Accountant in the P.G. Central Office of the Respondent-University and joined the said post on 2.1.1981. Those statements make it abundantly clear that the initial appointment of the petitioner came to an end paving the way for reappointment of the petitioner. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was given first time bound promotion on 2.1.1981. According to the counter affidavit, the petitioner stopped discharging the functions of Cashier from 3.3.1965 and, accordingly, for unauthorized absence without any intimation, the services of the petitioner were brought to an end on 22nd July, 1968 with effect from 3.3.1965 and thereupon the petitioner was re-appointed on 2.1.1981 on temporary basis for six months and the petitioner continued to discharge his duties attached to the post of Assistant in temporary capacity until he attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2000. It is the contention in the counter affidavit that there is no record of grant of any time bound promotion to the petitioner. It is the specific contention in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not become a permanent employee of the University until before he attained the age of superannuation. 5. The assertions made in the counter affidavit have not been denied by the petitioner by filing a rejoinder to the counter affidavit. 6. The above discussions would make it absolutely clear that there is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner discharged duties attached to the post of Assistant from 2.1.1981 until he attained the age of superannuation. Whether the petitioner discharged such duties on temporary basis or on permanent basis is of hardly any importance having regard to the fact that the petitioner discharged duties attached to a pensionable post and. Whether the petitioner discharged such duties on temporary basis or on permanent basis is of hardly any importance having regard to the fact that the petitioner discharged duties attached to a pensionable post and. accordingly, is entitled to pension as well as other terminal dues to be calculated on the basis of the services rendered by the petitioner from 2.1.1981 until he attained the age of superannuation. 7. In the event the petitioner while in service during 13.1.1962 to 3.3.1963 contributed any sum in the provident fund and did not withdraw the same, it goes without saying that the petitioner is also entitled to his credit such sum and, accordingly, while settling the terminal dues of the petitioner, the petitioner should also be paid the amount lying to his credit on account of provident fund. 8. Let the aforementioned payments be released and paid as quickly as possible but not later than three months from today.