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

2003 Supreme(Jhk) 1345

Jharkhand High Court
S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J.
Narayan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar - Respondent
CWJC 2421 Of 2000
Decided On : 5 December, 2003

Headnote:Service Law – Date of birth – issue raised after four years of retirement – fixation of pay – not fixed on the basis of any misrepresentation by petitions – petition allowed. (Paras 7, 8, 9 & 10)

ORDER

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This writ petition has been preferred by the writ petitioner for a direction on the respondents to pay him the retiral benefits, such as, regular and revised pension, leave salary, gratuity and G.P.F. along with 18% penal interest, besides statutory interest, as also cost of litigation of Rs. 10.000/-.

2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Karmchari and thereafter, promoted to the post of Circle Inspector. Ultimately he retired from the services of the State on 30th June, 1996 as Circle Inspector, Khuntpani Circle, Chaibasa. He filed several representations for payment of regular pension and pension in the revised scale of pay as also the other retiral benefits but most of them were not paid. On the other hand, the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, vide memo No. Pen-7-190, dated 4th June, 1997 directed for recovery of certain amount from the petitioner on account of his non-passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination,

3. The stand taken by the Accountant General, Bihar, is that due to some major objections, the service book and pension papers of the petitioner were returned to the Department vide letter No. Pen-7-189, dated 30th May, 1997 for rectifying the objections. Reminder was also given to the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa, with a copy to the Circle Officer, Khuntpani, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, vide letter No. Pen-7-851-52, dated 15th/22nd. March, 2000. Request was also made to send the G.P.F. Account number of the petitioner.

4. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the State, general plea has been taken that the retiral benefits, such as, G.P.F., gratuity, leave encashment and group insurance have already been paid to the petitioner, as shown at page 29 :

__________________________________________________________________

Sl. No. Item Amount Date

__________________________________________________________________

(i) G.P.F. Rs. 59,980/- 7.10.1996

(ii) Gratuity Rs. 44,540/- 24.10.1996

(iii) Group Insurance Rs. 26,333/- 24.10.1996

(iv) Leave salary Rs. 14,836/- 23.7.1996

__________________________________________________________________

5. It is also stated that the then Circle Officer sanctioned 90% of the provisional pension of 24 months i.e. from 1st July, 1996 to 1st July, 1998 at the rate of Rs. 957/- per month, out of which the petitioner has been paid provisional pension of 16 months i.e. from 1st July, 1996 to 30th October, 1997, amounting to Rs. 15.312/-on 5th March, 1998.

6. Further case of the respondents Is that the office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, vide letter No. Pen-7-483, dated 4th November, 1996 and letter No. Pen-7-189, dated 4th June 1997 raised four major objections and returned back the entire pension papers of the petitioner and service book to the Circle Officer, Khuntpani.

The first objection is that the petitioner passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination on 28th August, 1983 and, therefore, he was not entitled to get the benefit of salary enhancement during the period of from 15th June, 1968 to 27th August, 1983.

The 2nd objection is that the petitioner having been given the 1st time bound promotion with effect from 1st April, 1991 and 2nd time bound promotion with effect from 29th August, 1993. On 2nd time bound promotion, he was wrongly given the benefit of 12% pay fixation; which ought to have been given after three years of 1st time bound promotion.

The third objection is that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Circle Inspector on 2nd February, 1993 and, as such, he should have been given the maximum benefit of 12% of basic pay in the old pay scale i.e. Rs. 150/- only but contrary to this, he was given Rs. 225/-and thereby his pay was wrongly fixed.

The last and fourth objection is that there were cutting twice and re-writing of the date of birth in the service book of the petitioner.

7. Though the aforesaid objections were raised by the respondents, neither they have enclosed the copy of the service book nor have produced the o






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 Back to top