Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1533 (JHR)

Baijnath Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

2012-10-08

ALOK SINGH

body2012
ORDER Undisputedly, petitioner stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2004, from the post of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Investigation Bureau), Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka. Undisputedly, petitioner had joined the Bihar Finance Service on 19.07.1982 and after rendering 21 years 7 months and 11 days service, stood retired on 31.03.2004. Undisputedly, prior to 19.07.1982, petitioner was working as Assistant in the Bihar Legislative Assembly Secretariat from 28.08.1972 to 19.07.1982. 2. Petitioner has knocked the door of this court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the direction to the respondents to pay pension and gratuity to the petitioner which is not being released despite repeated requests and visits. 3. On 31.08.2012, this Court had passed order, as under: “Mr. J.P. Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that no amount towards pension and gratuity has been paid to the petitioner, who stood retired as far back as on 31.03.2004, as yet, despite several visits and requests to Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 is directed to release the pension and gratuity in favour of the petitioner or show cause within three weeks by way of personal affidavit as to why pension and gratuity is being withheld and has not been paid to the petitioner. List this case thereafter.” 4. Shri Mast Ram Meena, Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, has filed counter affidavit. Para9 of the counter affidavit reads as under : “That with regard to the statement made in para 4, 5 and 6 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner retired as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Investigation Bureau, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, on 31.03.2004. The petitioner had joined the Bihar Finance Service on 19.07.1982 and retired on 31.03.2004 as such the petitioner was in the service of the respondent (i.e. Finance Service) for 21 years 07 months and 11 days. Prior to joining the Bihar Finance Service the petitioner was working as Assistant in the Bihar Legislative Assembly Secretariat from 28.08.1972 to 19.07.1982. The said period, while the petitioner was working as Assistant in the Bihar Legislative Assembly Secretariat has not been regularised till date for want of the service book of the petitioner. It would be pertinent to state herein that earlier the opinion of the Finance Department was sought for regularising the said period of the service of the petitioner. The said period, while the petitioner was working as Assistant in the Bihar Legislative Assembly Secretariat has not been regularised till date for want of the service book of the petitioner. It would be pertinent to state herein that earlier the opinion of the Finance Department was sought for regularising the said period of the service of the petitioner. However, the Finance Department was of the opinion that the period of the service of the petitioner from 28.08.1972 to 19.07.1982 ought to be regularised only after the service book of the petitioner is verified. That it would be also relevant to state herein that the office of the Accountant General (A & E), Bihar, Patna vide its letter dated 29.03.2011 had informed the department that the service book and the service history of the petitioner for the above period has already been sent to the office of Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, Ranchi. However, the office of the Principal Accountant General (A & E) Jharkhand, Ranchi, has informed the Department that they have only received the service history of the petitioner from the office of the Accountant General (A & E) Bihar, Patna.” 5. Reasons given in paragraph9 of the counter affidavit are totally frivolous and illustrate red tapism prevailing in the Government Departments. Withholding pension of the Government servant on the ground that only service history of the petitioner was received in the office of the Accountant General, Jharkhand and service book is not sent by the A.G. Office, Bihar, seems to be an eyewash. If services rendered by the petitioner are not in dispute, stoppage of the pension on the hyper technical ground as narrated in para9 of the counter affidavit, cannot be tolerated by this Court. Petitioner stood retired on 31.03.2004. No satisfactory explanation is furnished in the affidavit as to what steps were taken for obtaining the service book in long eight years. Record of last drawn salary of the petitioner is available with the department. Total length of service in the Bihar Legislative Assembly as well as in the Finance Department is available with the department. Pension could have been easily fixed considering total length of service as well as last drawn salary. Record of last drawn salary of the petitioner is available with the department. Total length of service in the Bihar Legislative Assembly as well as in the Finance Department is available with the department. Pension could have been easily fixed considering total length of service as well as last drawn salary. There seems to be no dispute on the question of law that service rendered in one department of the Government shall be counted in the total service rendered in the another department. Excluding the period of service rendered in the Bihar Legislative Assembly on the ground since service book is not made available, therefore, service rendered therein could not be regularised, seems to be totally unjustified. Forcing a retried employee to die in starvation for want of pension is a clear cut violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Therefore, present petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to immediately calculate the pension, after counting total period of services rendered by the petitioner in the Finance Department as well as in the Bihar Legislative Assembly, and to pay the same to the petitioner along with amount of gratuity plus 10% interest thereon from 01.05.2004 (after expiry of 30 days from the date of retirement), on or before 30.11.2012. If pension, gratuity and interest is not paid on or before 30.11.2012, petitioner shall also be paid penal interest @ 18% per annum from 01.12.2012 till actual payment is made to the petitioner. Petitioner shall also be paid cost of this litigation which is assessed as Rs. 10,000/-. 7. The State Government shall be at liberty to find out the officer/official for whose fault petitioner was deprived from his pension and gratuity and shall fix the responsibility. State shall also be at liberty to recover the amount of interest and cost of the litigation so paid to the petitioner, from the salary of the officer held responsible.