ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 08-02-2024 Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Kumari Amrita, learned Government Pleader No. 3, for the State.

2. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3, the same is taken on record.

3. The petitioner, who superannuated on 31.01.2019 from the post of Urdu Translator at Bachhawara Block, Begusarai has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to ensure payment of all his post retiral benefits. The details of which has been duly mentioned in para.9 of the reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, which reads as follows:

“9. That with regards to the contents of the paragraph no.9, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner was granted certain payments as laid down in the answering paragraph, however an amount of Rupees 1,24,320 (admitted dues against leave encashment as reflected from ANNEXURE- P/6), Rupees7,34,397 (admitted dues against benefits of first ACP and second MACP as reflected from ANNEXURE-P/5), entire amount of gratuity and 100% pension amount (as reflected from paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the answering respondents themselves) are still unpaid after lapse of around 5 years and this bare fact shows the futility of the averments made by the answering respondents with regard to the notion of the admitted dues as construed by them.”

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that despite the petitioner having been superannuated on 31.01.2019, when the petitioner has not been accorded his pre and post retiral benefits, he had earlier approached before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15848 of 2021, which writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach before the concerned District Magistrate, who shall consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

5. In the light of the aforesaid order, the petitioner made representation before the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, who ultimately considering the representation of the petitioner has come out with the order dated 03.05.2023, rejecting the claim of the petitioner and directed the concerned Block Development Officer to issue Prapatra ‘Ka’ by providing all necessary evidence within a week and to proceed with further action.

6. In the light of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, the concerned Block Development Officer issued letter no. 898 dated 08.05.2023 directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.32,27,846.23, failing which it is stated that F.I.R. would be lodged against the petitioner. Both the orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that admittedly the date on which the petitioner superannuated, there had neither been any departmental or judicial proceeding and, as such, in any view of the matter withholding of retiral benefits, including pension, gratuity and leave encahsment, was not at all justified. Further submission has been made that so far the impugned orders are concerned, i.e. in relation to an incidence, which took place in the year 2015 and, as such, any direction for initiation of a departmental proceeding or issuance of Memo of charge with regard to an incidence, which took place in the year, 2015 is barred under Rule 43(b)(a)(ii) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Reliance has also been made on a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (C.W.J.C. No. 12943 of 2009) and analogous cases. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew the attention of this Court to the averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent no.3, wherein a categorical assertion has been made that admittedly the direction was given to the concerned Block Development Officer for submission of Prapatra ‘Ka’ against the petitioner, but the departme