Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 720 (PAT)

Ram Ekbal Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2010-04-12

JYOTI SARAN

body2010
JUDGEMENT Jyoti Saran, J. 1. Heard Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Himanshu Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to G.A. 5 for the State and Mr. L.P.K.Rajgrihar, learned Counsel representing the Accountant General, Bihar. 2. The petitioner superannuated from the post of Junior Engineer (Tools and Plant), Rural Engineering Organisation (Works Division), Katihar with effect from 31.8.2004. The non-payment of his post retiral dues led to the filing of the writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 6 the Executive Engineer and in paragraph-5 thereof, it is stated that the group insurance amount, G.P.F. amount and the pension amount have since been authorized/paid to the petitioner. 4. In so far as the unutilised leave is concerned, it was stated that due to non regularization of certain service period, the same could not be finalized and that action has been taken for regularization of the services of the petitioner and whereafter action would be taken for payment of the unutilised leave amount. 5. In relation to gratuity amount, it is stated that the same was authorised by the Accountant General under letter No. 803 dated 7.7.2006 but the same has been kept in abeyance in contemplation of recovery of Rs. 39,12,773.85 pertaining to Works Division, Katihar and an amount of Rs. 1,08,534 relating to Khagaria. It is next stated that vide letter dated 9.3.2010, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department has been requested to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts in question. 6. In so far as the claim of salary for the period July, 1996 to August, 2004 is concerned, it is stated that the same had been withheld by the Block Development Officer but the reasons have not been spelt out in the counter affidavit. 7. From the records of the proceedings, one fact is clear that until the filing of the counter affidavit on 15.3.2010, no departmental or judicial proceedings as envisaged under the Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules has either been initiated against the petitioner or is pending against him. In such situation, the withholding of the admissible dues of the petitioner on pretext of a contemplated departmental proceeding is without sanction of law. In such situation, the withholding of the admissible dues of the petitioner on pretext of a contemplated departmental proceeding is without sanction of law. Whether or not the proceedings can be initiated after six years of retirement of the petitioner, is not a subject matter of this proceeding and thus this Court would not express any opinion on the same. 8. Indisputedly, in absence of any departmental or judicial proceedings, the respondents can not withhold the retiral benefits of the petitioner and he would be entitled to his entire post retiral and other benefits including the arrears of salary. The respondents equally would be within their jurisdiction to recover/adjust any advances that has remained outstanding against the petitioner. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the respondents have finalized his pension but the same has been done on the basis of the salary drawn by him in July, 1996 and not on the basis of the salary that would be admissible to him on the date of retirement on 31.8.2004. 10. Having regard to the situation aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No. 2 the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Rural Engineering Organisation, Govt. of Bihar, Patna to examine the pending claims of the petitioner as noted hereinabove, in the backdrop that no departmental proceedings has either been initiated or is pending against the petitioner and thus entitling the petitioner to receive his post retiral and other claims and which should be provided to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. In case, there are any miscellaneous advances/outstanding against the petitioner, the Secretary should provide an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the advances and dispose of the same by passing an appropriate reasoned order, if not satisfied by the explanation advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 12. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions aforesaid.