Back
2016 Supreme(Pat) 1400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Hemant Gupta, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Parmeshwar Nath Mishra Son of Late Devidyal Mishra & Anr. - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 768 of 2015 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 23044 of 2011
Decided On : 02-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh
Retiral benefits cannot be declined for long absence from duty if no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the employee.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Retiral Benefits - The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal and upheld the decision of the learned Single Bench to grant retiral benefits to the writ applicant despite long absence from duty.
Fact of the Case:
The writ applicant, who was absent from duty for a long period, sought payment of retiral benefits. The learned Single Bench allowed the writ application and directed the appellants to examine the claim of payment of retiral benefits to the writ applicant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench and held that the appellants failed to initiate any action during the period of absence or even after retirement. The court directed that the period of absence be regularized by granting leave to the writ applicant.
Issues: The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal was to an order passed by the learned Single Bench, regarding the entitlement of the writ applicant to retiral benefits despite long absence from duty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against an employee for absence, the retiral benefits cannot be declined for the reason that the employee was absent from duty for a long period.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the present Letters Patent Appeal with a direction that the period of absence from July 1997 to December 2010 will be regularized by granting leave to the writ applicant.
Hemant Gupta, J.
Re.: I.A. No. 3161 of 2015
The application is for condonation of delay of 1 year 67 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the Interlocutory Application, we are satisfied that the appellants have shown sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay of 1 year 67 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.
3. Consequently, Interlocutory Application No. 3161 of 2015 is allowed and delay of 1 year 67 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.
Re.: L.P.A. No. 768 of 2015
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 6th of August, 2013 in C.W.J.C. No. 23044 of 2011, whereby the writ application has been allowed and the present appellants were directed to examine the claim of payment of retiral benefits to the writ applicant.
6. The writ applicant was appointed on 12th of November, 1973 as Accounts Clerk. He attained the age of superannuation on 31st of December, 2010. The claim in the writ application was for the payment of the retiral benefits.
7. The stand of the writ applicant was that the writ applicant was a mental patient and did not perform any duty from the year 2005 till the date of his superannuation but since no departmental proceedings were initiated before the superannuation of the writ applicant, therefore, the writ applicant is entitled to the retrial benefits.
8. The learned Single Bench found that since no proceedings were initiated for his continuous absence from 1997 to 2010 of the writ applicant, therefore, the said period is to be counted for the purposes of qualifying service. Liberty was given to the appellants to adjust absence period against the Earned Leave and also that he will not be entitled to any salary for the period of absence. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and find no error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench.
9. For long absence of the writ applicant, the appellants have failed to initiate any action during the period of absence or even after retirement. Once no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against an employee for absence, the retrial benefits cannot be declined for the reason that he was absent from duty for long period. The direction of the learned Single Bench to hold that the writ applicant will not be entitled to salary and will not be entitled to Earned Leave is fair and reasonable.
10. We, therefore, dispose of the present Letters Patent Appeal with a direction that the period of absence from July 1997 to December, 2010 will be regularized by grant of leave of the kind due to the writ applicant.
