JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BSPHCL’) and it’s authorities (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondents’).

2. Petitioner in this case is seeking quashing of the order passed by Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the ‘BSPHCL’ by which he has rejected the representation of the petitioner and refused to release the gratuity and leave encashment of the petitioner. A writ in the nature of mandamus has also been sought for directing the respondents to release the gratuity and leave encashment amount in favour of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the writ application the gratuity amount has already been released, therefore the relief is now restricted to the entitlement of the petitioner as regards the leave encashment amount and payability of statutory interest for the delayed period of payment of gratuity. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not paid any interest for the delayed payment.

The facts in brief are as under:-

(1) The petitioner retired from service as Chief Engineer on 31.03.2004. While he was posted as Chief Engineer in the Dehri-on-Sone Electrical Circle, a First Information Report giving rise to Vigilance Case No. 02 of 2002 was instituted wherein several persons including the petitioner has been made accused. There was an allegation that one crusher owner was engaged in electricity theft and the employees of the erstwhile electricity board were made accused alleging that they had conspired with the said crusher owner.

(2) After retirement when the petitioner was denied his retiral benefits he filed a petition bearing CWJC No. 8781/2008 which was disposed off with a direction to the competent authority to take a decision for release of the gratuity and leave encashment. It is in the light of the said order that the petitioner represented before the respondent authorities. The said representation has been rejected vide letter no. 554 dated 09.07.2015 (Annexure ‘3’ to the writ application).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the Annexure ‘3’ it would appear that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent no. 1 has rejected the representation of the petitioner taking a view that he was facing a charge on the date of his retirement. In the same order, it has come that in the case of Sri Saryu Prasad Singh, who, according to the petitioner, was similarly situated as an accused in the said Vigilance Case the respondents had sanctioned his leave encashment amount but then his case has been distinguished saying that on the date of retirement of Sri Saryu Prasad Singh i.e. 30.11.2001 the charge-sheet was not filed against him and the same came to be filed only on 02.07.2002.

5. Learned counsel submits that at this stage the respondents have brought on record the standing order no. 1/Pension-EEB-4244/97 784/Dated, the 21.08.97 and a reading of the same would show that it talks of those employees/officers who were facing ‘charges’ on the date of their superannuation. It nowhere mentions about the pendency of a criminal proceeding or filing of a charge-sheet being a ground of withholding of the leave encashment.

6. It is submitted that admittedly in the case of the petitioner as also in the case of Sri Saryu Prasad Singh no departmental proceeding has been initiated as neither the petitioner nor said Sri Saryu Prasad Singh was served with any memo of charge. In his submissions, the standing order dated 21.08.1997 (Annexure ‘B’ to the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondents) would be applicable only when the employee is facing a charge in a departmental proceeding on the date of his superannuation.

7. Learned counsel further submits that on the date of retirement of this petitioner there was no standing order allowing withholdment of the leave encashment benefit of a reti