Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 386 (PAT)

Brahmanand Upadhyay v. State Of Bihar

2010-03-17

JYOTI SARAN

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Amar Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to AAG-6 for the State. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been taken for disposal at the stage of admission. 3. Brief facts of the matter are that the petitioner was appointed as a Correspondence Clerk on 10.4.1961 and was promoted to the post of Accounts Clerk-cum-Cashier with effect from 1.10.1972. The petitioner was awarded further promotion to the post of Accountant with effect from 13.2.1975 and superannuated while holding the said post with effect from 30.4.1994. Consequent upon his superannuation, his pensionary benefit was sanctioned by order dated 30.4.1994 (Annexure-7) sanctioning pension and gratuity on provisional basis. 4. It is indisputed that the petitioner continued to get provisional pension on the basis of the order sanctioning provisional pension as contained in Annexure-7 and has been paid the gratuity as set out thereunder. It is at the stage of finalization of the pension case that an objection came to be raised at the level of the Accountant General who vide letter dated 7.10.2004 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit), after a lapse of almost ten years, sought information from the Project Coordinator, Water Resources (Minor Irrigation) Department as to whether the petitioner had passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and whether the increments granted to him was in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner having superannuated after getting the promotions not once but twice, was not required to respond to the query made by the Project Coordinator but he however, vide reply dated 3.6.2005 (Annexure-E) informed the Project Coordinator that he had already passed the said examination in the year 1963-64 and which could be verified in the Raj Bhasha Department of the Government. The Superintending Engineer (Technical), vide memo dated 15.6.2005 (Annexure-G) informed the Project Coordinator that large number of papers relating to the employees got destroyed in the floods in the year 1975 and hence, he was not in a position to give information in this regard. 6. The fact remains that the petitioner had contended that he had passed the said examination in the year 1963-64 and which fact is not controverted by any document of the State Government. 6. The fact remains that the petitioner had contended that he had passed the said examination in the year 1963-64 and which fact is not controverted by any document of the State Government. The fact also remains that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Accounts Clerk-cum-Cashier on 1.10.1972 and thereafter, to the post of Accountant on 13.2.1975 and superannuated on 30.4.1994. 7. In the aforementioned circumstances, where the petitioner was admittedly granted two promotions and there is no averment controverting the claim of the petitioner of having passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, the respondent authorities including the Accountant General cannot be allowed to raise a frivolous and a stale issue of passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination by the petitioner while he was holding the post of Correspondence Clerk. The said objection is not only unreasonable but is an arbitrary obstruction to the benefits accruable to the petitioner. 8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The authorities of the State Government are directed to forthwith process the pension, gratuity and GPF claim papers of the petitioner and after seeking authorisation from the Accountant General, pay the arrears thereof after adjusting the amount received by the petitioner together with admissible statutory interest. The petitioner shall also be entitled to 5% interest on the arrears of pension and gratuity amount, to be calculated from the date of superannuation of the petitioner, i.e. 30.4.1994 until the date of its actual payment(s). The process should be completed expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order.