Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1850 (JHR)

Dhapru Rai v. State of Jharkhand

2019-11-11

S.N.PATHAK

body2019
ORDER : 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to pay him all his retiral benefits, for which he is legally entitled to receive from respondent-authorities, as the petitioner has superannuated from services on 31.5.2017 but till date he has not received a single penny under the head of retiral benefits. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner on the basis of letter dated 20.2.2019, issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih. 3. The case of the petitioners lies in a narrow compass. In pursuant to an advertisement for the post of Assistant Teacher, the petitioner having the requisite qualifications, had applied for the same and on being declared successful in the recruitment process, joined the said post on 15.9.1980. After joining, the educational certificates of the petitioner were verified and two months thereafter, he started getting his salary. During his service period, the petitioner was transferred to different places. It is the specific case of the petitioner that before four months prior to his superannuation, i.e. on 30.1.2017 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih that in course of verification of the educational certificates, the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), Bihar School Examination Board, Bihar, Patna had sent letter dated 19.11.2016 that roll code 1440 was' not used in the examination of the year 1974(A) and as such, it is forged and petitioner was asked to submit his reply within a week. Again on 3.4.2017, petitioner was asked to submit his reply pursuant to show-cause notice dated 30.1.2017. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed his reply categorically stating that educational certificate of the petitioner is genuine and correct and requested the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih to enquire the same from Bihar School Examination Board, Patna and thereafter, the retiral benefits may be given to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), Bihar School Examination Board, Patna had sent a letter to the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih on 21.9.2017, wherein he has written that due to inadvertence, wrong verification report was sent and when he made an enquiry, found the following facts: Candidate Name Dhapru Rail Roll Code 1440 Roll No. 326 Year 1974(A) Marks Obtained 533 Division Second 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that in spite of the report from Bihar School Examination. Board, the respondents are not making payment of the retiral benefits to the petitioner as a result of which, the petitioner is facing financial hardship. Aggrieved by the said inaction of the respondent-Department, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the entire service' career, the petitioner received all the benefits provided to a Primary School Teacher including the salary and other financial benefits and his appointment was never questioned during his entire service tenure. It is only at the fag end of his service career i.e. four months prior to his superannuation, a letter was issued. claiming appointment of the petitioner to be a forged one. Learned counsel submits that even the said letter was verified by Bihar School Examination Board and it was found that inadvertently, the letter was issued by the Officer of the District. Superintendent of Education. In: spite of the same, again the District Superintendent of Education rejected the claim of the petitioner regarding retiral benefits and the entire benefits under the head of retiral benefits have been forfeited on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner is forged one. Learned counsel submits that the action of the respondent is highly discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal and against the principle of natural justice and as such, respondents may' be restrained to take any coercive steps against the petitioner on the basis of letter dated 20.2.2019. Learned counsel further submits that the retiral benefits cannot be withheld by the respondent for an indefinite period, as the same is not given to an employee as a bounty and as such, a direction may be given to the respondents to pay the retiral benefits as well as pension forthwith. 6. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-States vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner obtained employment by means of false and fabricated matriculation certificate and the District Education Establishment Committee in its meeting held on 20.2.2019, resolved to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Further, similarly situated persons still continuing in employment were put under suspension. Further, similarly situated persons still continuing in employment were put under suspension. It was also resolved to file an F.I.R. against the petitioner and others for submitting false and fabricated certificate for getting the employment and further resolved to recover the salary from the erring” employees. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has approached this Court without availing the remedy of appeal before the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, under Teachers Appointment Rules, 1994 against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition does not deserves any merit and as such, the same may kindly be dismissed outrightly. 7. Be that as. it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. From perusal of the records it appears that on being declared successful, the petitioner was appointed against the post of Assistant Teacher and thereafter, his educational certificates were sent for verification. After receipt of the verification report, the respondents started paying salary to the petitioner. Further, during his service tenure, the petitioner was transferred to different places and he had rendered an unblemished service career. However, at the fag end of his service career, i.e. four months prior to his superannuation, the respondents raised objection regarding genuineness of the educational certificates. Thereafter, the genuineness of the said certificates were again verified by the respondents and the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), Bihar School Examination Board, Patna has given his report that the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner are genuine. In spite of that the respondents have withheld the retiral benefits and not paying the, pension to the petitioner. This shows the highhandedness and callous approach of the high ranking Officials of the respondent-Department and as result of which, a retired employees has to face financial hardship. 8. The said issue fell for consideration before this Hon'ble Court in case of Shankar Ghosh vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2010 (3) JCR 356 (Jhr.) wherein this Hon'ble Court has held that: “7. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 23.2.1972. There is a presumption in law that when he was appointed after his eligibility, qualifications, certificates and testimonials were verified. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 23.2.1972. There is a presumption in law that when he was appointed after his eligibility, qualifications, certificates and testimonials were verified. That is further emboldened in the present case from the facts that from 1972 till 1999 none found any illegality in his appointment or quality of education imparted to him. Twenty-seven years after his appointment suddenly an issue of the illegality of the appointment is sought to be ranked up. He is then made to run to the lawyer and to the Court room and balance his budget for running his houses. The causality is to the education being imparted by him. This Court in 2003 granted still chose to sit over the matter. The pronouncement of the illegality of the appointment has been made after superannuation of the petitioner. For what purpose and with what achievement? Even this determination is contrary to elementary principles of law which is so well established by now and needs no reiteration that no man shall be condemned unheard. The respondents chose to do exactly opposite to condemn the petitioner without hearing him. The so-called enquiry which resulted into the order dated 14.9.2004, it was never considered necessary to associate the petitioner with the same when decisions were taken on photocopies of the documents.” 8. If the petitioner was an illegally appointee as is sought to be contended quite obviously it was a collusive appointment. If, it was a collusive appointment, why should the petitioner suffer alone? Those who made hay while the sun shone must equally see cloudy, days. If the petitioner has to be denied his arrears of salary and retiral benefits all those in the Government who were associated with the appointment of the petitioner and released all salary to him as Assistant Teacher from 1972 to 1999 are equally required to be proceeded with against departmentally or under the criminal laws of the land as the case may be. This counter-affidavit of the respondents is completely silent on this issue, perhaps intentionally. 9. As a sequitur of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions the letter/order dated 20.2.2019, is hereby quashed and set aside. This counter-affidavit of the respondents is completely silent on this issue, perhaps intentionally. 9. As a sequitur of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions the letter/order dated 20.2.2019, is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the entire retiral benefits to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and also start making payment of pension to the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.