The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Ram Chandra Thakur & Anr on 18 July, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.215 of 2016
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 687 of 2009

1. The State Of Bihar through Commissioner -cum- Secretary, Department of Water
Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna

2. The Under Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna

3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department (Irrigation), Anisabad, Patna

4. The Treasury Officer, Sichai Bhawan, Patna

5. The District Provident Fund Officer, Patna
…. …. Respondents- Appellants
Versus

1. Ram Chandra Thakur, S/o Late Ram Sarwal Thakur, R/o village Harpur, P.S.
Peor, District- Muzaffarpur Petitioner- Respondent 1st Set

2. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna Petitioner-Respondent 2nd Set

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kundan Kumar Sinha, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date: 18-07-2017

Shri Alok Ranjan, Advocate appears for the State

Government.

Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, Advocate appears for the

respondents.

The writ petitioner is a retired employee and his petition

has been allowed to the extent of granting interest at the rate of 12%

for the delay in settlement of his pensionary benefit. We propose to

pass the following order after hearing learned counsel for the

respondent No.1.

Patna High Court LPA No.215 of 2016 dt.18-07-2017

2/3

This appeal has been filed by the State Government

seeking exception to an order dated 6.8.2015 passed by the Writ Court

READ  Shri. Naveen Kumar K vs The State Of Karnataka By on 3 April, 2017

in CWJC No. 587 of 2009. The respondent No. 1-employee was

working in the Water Resources Department and on attaining the age

of superannuation in the year 2004, he retired from the post of Junior

Engineer. While in service he was suspended on 29.7.1999 because of

his involvement in a criminal case under Section 498A. During the

period of his suspension he retired but after his retirement his

pensionary benefit was not settled. He represented and on his

representation it was found that he was acquitted in the year 2008 and

finally even the departmental proceedings initiated against him,

culminated by dropping the proceedings in the year 2010. In spite of

that when the pensionary benefit was not granted, he filed a writ

petition in 2009 and the learned Writ Court found that during the

pendency of the writ petition in the year 2012 the pensionary benefit

was settled. However, it was found by the learned Writ Court that

merely because the petitioner was suspended on account of his

involvement in a criminal case for the offences under Section 498A

and no action was taken against him, his pensionary benefit after

retirement in 2004, cannot be withheld, this is not permissible in law

and finding delay of 8 years in settling the pensionary benefit,

directed payment of interest at the rate of 12%.
Patna High Court LPA No.215 of 2016 dt.18-07-2017

3/3

In doing so for the reasons as are indicated hereinabove,

we see no error in the order of the Writ Court warranting

READ  Dinesh Yadav @ Chamcham Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 8 August, 2017

reconsideration.

The appeal stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ)

S.Pandey/- (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.07.2017
Transmission
Date

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *