Patna High Court
Harihar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 19 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21620 of 2019
======================================================
Harihar Singh S/o Late Suryadev Singh Resident of Village- Darbhanga, P.s.-
Madanpur, and Distt.- Aurangabad (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The District Magistrate Aurangabad
3. The Deputy Development Commissioner cum The Chief Executive Officer
Zila Parishad, Aurangabad
4. The Chairman Zila Parishad, Aurangabad
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr.Anirudh Kumar Verma
For the State : Ms.Archana Meenakshee (GP 6)
: Mr.Nikesh Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-07-2021
This matter has been taken up for hearing online because
of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.
2. While working against the post of Road Sarkar in the
office of Zila Parishad, Aurangabad, the petitioner retired from
service with effect from 31.03.2019 on attaining the age of his
superannuation. He has filed this writ application seeking direction
to the respondent no. 3 for payment of his post retiral dues against
General Provident Fund amount in part, gratuity, cash equivalent
to un-utilized earned leave and other admissible benefits
Patna High Court CWJC No.21620 of 2019 dt.19-07-2021
consequent upon implementation of 6th and 7th pay revisions, with
statutory interest.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Zila
Parishad wherein it has been stated, inter alia, that during the
course of an audit conducted in 2019, a sum of Rs.14,41,293/- was
found to be outstanding against the advance which was made to
the petitioner for execution of certain works. The statement
showing position of advance outstanding against him as on
31.03.2013 has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter
affidavit from which it transpires that advance outstanding against
the petitioner as on 01.04.2012 was found to be Rs.14,49,523/- out
of which a sum of Rs.8,230/- was adjusted during financial year
2011-12 and 2012-13. Accordingly, it is the case of Zila Parishad
that the said sum of Rs.14,41,293/- remained outstanding against
the petitioner as on 31.03.2013. As has been noticed hereinabove,
the petitioner retired six years thereafter. Nearly one year after the
superannuation of the petitioner, the Deputy Development
Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad,
Aurangabad (respondent no. 3) vide letter no. 180 dated
16.03.2020 is said to have asked the petitioner to deposit the said
outstanding amount of Rs.14,41,293. The petitioner, it is stated,
responded to the said communication mentioning therein that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.21620 of 2019 dt.19-07-2021
bills had already been submitted by him earlier for adjustment but
the same had not been done by the Accountant and the Assistant of
Zila Parishad, Aurangabad. It is also stated in the counter affidavit
that the petitioner was asked to state clearly as to when and where
he had submitted the bills so that action could be taken for its
adjustment failing which it would be deemed that the bills had not
been submitted by him earlier and the outstanding dues taken as
advance shall be realized from his retiral benefits.
4. The sum and substance of the case of the respondent
Zila Parishad is that because of non-adjustment of the outstanding
advance of Rs.14,41,293/- the petitioner has not been paid his all
retiral benefits. It has, however, been stated that a sum of
Rs.5,70,000/- has been deposited in the petitioner's account
against his provident fund entitlement. It is noteworthy that there
is no scheme of monthly pension in Zila Parishad. In the reply
filed on behalf of the petitioner to the counter affidavit of Zila
Parishad, it has been admitted that the provident fund amount has
been paid to the petitioner.
5. It is curious to note from the stand of the respondents
Zila Parishad itself that though the said outstanding advanced was
noticed in an audit conducted in 2013, evidently no serious effort
was made either in the direction of adjustment of the said amount,
Patna High Court CWJC No.21620 of 2019 dt.19-07-2021
if the work in question was executed and bills were duly submitted
by the petitioner or any departmental action against the petitioner.
The Court does not find any explanation on record for such lapse
on the part of Zila Parishad. If according to the respondents there
was lapse on the part of the petitioner because of which the
outstanding advance could not be adjusted, they were well within
their rights to have taken action against the petitioner. The
respondents allowed the petitioner to retire without seeking any
explanation from him and conducting any enquiry in relation to the
advance pending against him. As a matter of fact, no action at all
appears to have been taken by the respondents for
adjustment/recovery of the amount in question in accordance with
law, except for withholding the entitlement of the petitioner
against various heads which were payable to him before/after his
superannuation.
6. Such action of the respondents without complying
with any procedure in conformity with the requirement of
principles of natural justice cannot be approved by this Court.
Apparently, the decision of the respondent to withhold the amount
which the petitioner is entitled to consequent upon is retirement is
unilateral, which is unsustainable.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21620 of 2019 dt.19-07-2021
7. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, in my opinion,
a case for interference in exercise power of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The
respondent no. 3 is directed to ensure that the petitioner is paid all
his admissible entitlements within a period of three months from
the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
8. It will however be open for the respondents to take
steps for adjustment of the advance which had remained
outstanding, as disclosed in the counter affidavit. It goes without
saying that the respondents shall also be at liberty to take steps for
recovery of the amount from the petitioner, if not adjusted, through
certificate proceeding under the provisions of Bihar Public
Demand Recovery Act, 1914.
9. This application is allowed with the aforesaid
observations and directions.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
AKASH/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 21 .07.2021
Transmission Date N/A
