SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Pat) 740

ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Sudhir Kumar Sinha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr.Prabhu Nath Pathak, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Harish Kumar, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Prabhu Nath Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harish Kumar, learned Government Pleader-8 for the State.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay 10% pension and 10% gratuity to the petitioner, which has wrongly been withheld by the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner retired from the post of Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Samastipur, Water Resources Department and at the time of retirement no departmental and / or any criminal proceeding was pending against the petitioner. He further submits that 90% pension and gratuity was paid to the petitioner after retirement, however, without any departmental proceeding and / or any order passed by the respondent authority, 10% pension and gratuity has been withheld arbitrarily.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that at the given point of time the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer and was also in the capacity of Drawing and Disbursing Officer. While discharging the duty of Drawing and Disbursing Officer during the period 2014-18 the petitioner deducted TDS amo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top