IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Nilu Agrawal, J.
Binay Kumar Thakur, Son Of Raj Narain Thakur - Appellant
Vs.
State of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2267 of 2018
Decided On : 14-03-2019
Service Law-Retiral Benefit-Petitioner requested for a technical resignation from the parent department with clear stipulation that his pension and all retiral benefits along with technical resignation be accepted and only after a decision on giving the said benefits, to accept the resignation-Without first deciding regarding entitlement of said benefits, the parent department, without applying its mind to the relevant rule, accepted the resignation for absorption in the NHAI without pension and pensionary benefits, thereby forfeiting his past service which would tantamount to imposition of major punishment without resorting to regular departmental proceeding as the petitioner on the date of relieving for absorption had already completed more than 20 years of service with the state government-it is not open to to the respondents to have accepted the resignation of the petitioner, it they were not in a position to grant benefits/facilities which the petitioner had sought in the first place-letter of resignation was not unconditional letter of resignation nor a voluntary resignation from service asking for or after forfeiting the past service benefits-claim of petitioner wrongly rejected-Writ application allowed-Impugned order to the extent of forefeiting the pension and post retiral benefits set aside-Petitioner held entitled to pension and post retiral benefit as granted to other similarly situated employees. (Para 11 to 14)
(2013) 1 SCC 701, (2011) 12 SCC 197, LPA No. 688/2009 dt. 10.11.2014-Referred.
Nilu Agrawal, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The present writ application has been filed for quashing of the impugned notification as contained in Memo No. 01/Estb.-09/2013-12010(S) dated 12.12.2014, as contained in Annexure-20 to this application, issued by Respondent No. 3, the Additional Secretary to the Government, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar to the extent that while accepting the technical resignation of the petitioner from the post of Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Patna on account of appointment of the petitioner by way of absorption against the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical), in the National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'NHAI') pension and other post retiral benefits to the petitioner had been denied. The application for technical resignation enabling the petitioner to join NHAI was a conditional offer, hence, a conditional offer and not a resignation simpliciter would not entitle the respondent authorities to forfeit the benefit of pension and other post retiral benefits. Petitioner has also prayed for payment of his pensionary and other post retiral benefits along with statutory as well as penal interest to which he is duly entitled or in the alternative for treating the technical resignation as an application for voluntary retirement and provide pension and post retiral benefits as the petitioner fulfills the qualifying years of service and other eligibility criteria as stipulated under Memo No. 190 dated 27.04.1979 of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar as he has completed the minimum qualifying service of 20 years in the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar.
3. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on 16.06.1987 and was confirmed in service with effect from 03.07.2004. He was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) vide notification No. 12231(S) dated 01.11.2006 (Annexure-5). While being posted as Executive Engineer (Monitoring) in the office of the Chief Engineer (Monitoring) a news advertisement was published by the NHAI inviting application for various posts on deputation vide advertisement dated 10.11.2007. By a letter dated 17.01.2008, the Deputy General Manager (Admn.), NHAI directed the petitioner to appear for interview. Petitioner was selected and the services of the petitioner was placed under NHAI on deputation for 4 years vide Memo No. 5406(S) dated 18.04.2008 by the Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna, which is Annexure-10 to the writ application. Thereafter, NHAI consequent upon his release from Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna appointed the petitioner as Deputy General Manager (Technical) on deputation basis for a period of 4 years, which is Annexure-11 to the writ application. On 01.11.2012, NHAI issued a circular inviting from the officers of the rank of Deputy General Manager who were willing for selection on absorption basis, which is Annexure-12. Petitioner duly informed the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna for forwarding his application to the NHAI for his appointment by way of absorption vide letter dated 07.11.2012, as contained in Annexure-13. However, the Road Construction Department issued a letter to the Manager (Admn.), NHAI for returning back the services of the petitioner as the period of 4 years expired on 13.04.2012 vide Memo No. 155(S) dated 08.01.2013 as contained in Annexure-14. At this stage, the NHAI requested for extension of deputation term of the petitioner for a period of one year by letter dated 28.01.2013, as contained in Annexure-15, as the petitioner was posted in the Vigilance Division of the NHAI and was handling some critical investigations which were half way through which was not replied by the Road Construction Department. Thereafter the petitioner wa
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.