Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1194 (PAT)

Arvind Kumar Choudhary v. State of Bihar

2012-08-27

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the State of Bihar and its authorities as well as Bihar State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity) and its authorities to pay his arrears of salary in the old pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/- for the post of Store Keeper with effect from 1993-94 to 1996-97 and also in the revised pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- from 1997-98 to 31.1.2001 when the petitioner retired from service. The petitioner has also claimed for payment of difference of salary for the period from 1990-91 to 30.4.1994 with consequential retiral benefits, which are still due and the petitioner is entitled to receive all the legal dues, which have not yet been satisfied by the respondents even after lapse of several years. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Store Keeper in the Corporation on 30.11.1972 and was transferred to several places during his service. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him in the year 1978, which was finally dropped in the year 2005 i.e. after 27 years and in the meantime he was also under suspension for some period. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the continuance of the aforesaid proceeding for such a long time forced him to suffer irreparable loss in shape of mental agony and torture besides civil consequences and non-payment of salary with consequential retiral benefits even after his retirement in the year 2001. He also submits that out of his retiral dues, only a sum of Rs.2,17,224.00 was paid to the petitioner on the direction of Justice Uday Sinha Committee at the intervention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the balance amount is still due. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Corporation vehemently opposes the said contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that for the reliefs claimed before this Court, the petitioner ought to have moved before the concerned authorities. It is also averred that the Corporation is ceased to function and huge number of its employees have remained unpaid of their salary since 1993 and only some of the employees have been paid on the orders passed by Justice Uday Sinha Committee at the intervention of the Apex Court. It is also averred that the Corporation is ceased to function and huge number of its employees have remained unpaid of their salary since 1993 and only some of the employees have been paid on the orders passed by Justice Uday Sinha Committee at the intervention of the Apex Court. He further submits that the Corporation has got no money to pay to its employees including the petitioner and only if the funds from the State Government are received, due amounts shall be paid to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for respondent-State submits that he has not received any instruction till date although four years have lapsed and several opportunities have been given and as such he is unable to say anything. 7. Learned counsel for respondent- Employees Provident Fund Commissioner has filed a counter-affidavit, in which he has stated that amounts of employees provident fund have been paid through cheque to the petitioner and his pension is also being paid. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that still some amounts of employees provident fund remain to be paid and the balance of arrears of pension etc. also remains to be paid as pension etc. have to be paid to the petitioner as per the revised pay scale. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary in the old pay scale of Rs.1,400-2,300/- from 1993-94 to 1996-97 and is also entitled to revised pay scale of Rs.4,500-7,000/- from 1997-98 to 31.1.2001 and also the difference of salary for the period from 1990-91 to 30.4.1994 with consequential retiral benefits. 9. 9. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Managing Director of the Corporation with a written application raising his entire claims along with a copy of this order within fifteen days from today, whereafter, the said authority shall calculate the entire dues of the petitioner with respect to his arrears of salary as per the old pay scale and as per the revised pay scale for the relevant periods and ascertain the full amount payable to the petitioner in that regard within two months thereafter and immediately thereafter the Managing Director of the Corporation must send letter to the Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department, Government of Bihar to make available such funds for payment to the petitioner and the Principal Secretary shall make such funds available to the Corporation within two months thereafter to be paid to the petitioner. 10. So far the pension and employees provident fund are concerned, as soon as calculation is made by the Managing Director of the Corporation, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall, accordingly, calculate the dues with respect to pension and employees provident fund and shall pay the said amount to the petitioner within two months thereafter. The payment of employees provident fund shall be subject to payments received from the employer and the employee.