Ras Bihari Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 159 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.458 of 2020
     ======================================================

Ras Bihari Kumar Son of Raj Kumar Ray Resident of Village- Heera Kanhauli, P.S. Parsauni, Anchal Parsauni, District- Sitamarhi ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sitamarhi.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi.

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Belsand, District- Sitamarhi.

5. The Circle Officer, Parsauni, District Sitamarhi. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner    :       Mr.Naresh Prasad, Advocate
     For the Respondents   :       Mr.Md.N.H.Khan (SC1)

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 11-01-2023 Petitioner has challenged order dated 25.6.2018

(Annexure 7) by which his application for appointment on the post

of chaukidar has been rejected by the District Magistrate,

Sitamarhi.

It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner's father

was due to retire on 30.11.2017 from the post of chaukidar. He

submitted his application dated 9.10.2017 (Annexure 4) along with

required documents of his son (petitioner) before the District

Magistrate, Sitamarhi for voluntary retirement and for appointment

of the petitioner on the post of chaukidar under the Voluntary

Retirement Scheme in the light of resolution passed by the

Government of Bihar vide Letter No. 1896 dated 5.3.2014

(Annexure 1 to the writ petition). On consideration of the matter,

the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi vide proceedings/order dated

25.6.2018 (Annexure 7) rejected the application dated 9.10.2017 Patna High Court CWJC No.458 of 2020 dt.11-01-2023

(Annexure 4) on the ground that the same was not submitted in

time.

While assailing the impugned order dated 25.6.2018

(Annexure 7), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

said order is arbitrary and bad in law. He submits that the father of

the petitioner submitted his application 1 month and 21 days prior

to his retirement and nominated his son for appointment on the

post of chaukidar under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

Thereafter, he did not work as chaukidar nor did he receive the

salary till his retirement. He submits that the application for

appointment of the petitioner was submitted well within time

stipulated in Clause 3(ii)(k) or 3(ii)(Gh) of the Resolution vide

letter no. 1896 dated 5.3.2014 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) in

which it has been clearly stated that such chaukidar seeking

voluntary retirement and naming a successor should file his

application under VRS and the nomination of ward at least one

month before the date on which he is seeking voluntary retirement.

In the case in hand, petitioner's father was due to retire on

30.11.2017 and so he filed the said application on 9.10.2017, i.e, 1

month and 21 days earlier from the date of retirement. Reliance

has been placed on the judgments of different co-ordinate benches

of this Court dated 5.7.2017 & 11.9.2018, respectively passed in Patna High Court CWJC No.458 of 2020 dt.11-01-2023

C.W.J.C.No. 189/2017 (Jharu Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar &

others) and other analogous writ petitions and C.W.J.C.No.

18409/2017 (Harendra Roy Vs. the State of Bihar and others).

Learned counsel for the State filed counter affidavit. It

has been stated in the counter affidavit that as per the guidelines

contained in Letter no. 8442 dated 23.10.2017 (Annexure 5 to the

writ petition), the chaukidar/dafadar desirous to retire voluntarily

and seek appointment of his nominee on the post of chaukidar will

have to submit application on the date which falls at least two

months before the date of the superannuation. It is further stated

that as per guidelines dated 22.6.2018 (Annexure 6 to the writ

petition) it has been made clear that if a chaukidar is willing to

retire voluntarily and seeks appointment of his nominee and

submits his application within the prescribed time but goes to

receive salary upto the date of his superannuation, he will be not

entitled to benefit of voluntary retirement and appointment of his

nominee/dependent. It is further stated that the father of the

petitioner was going to retire on 30.11.2017 and so he was

required to file application for voluntary retirement and for

appointment of the petitioner before 30.9.2017 but contrary to the

same he submitted this application on 9.10.2017 which was not Patna High Court CWJC No.458 of 2020 dt.11-01-2023

within the prescribed period for seeking appointment of his

nominee.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and

perused the materials available on the record as also the judgments

of the Court.

There is no dispute that the petitioner's father filed the

application seeking voluntary retirement and for appointment of

his nominee/petitioner 1 month and 21 days earlier from the date

of his retirement, i.e.,on 30.11.2017, as such, he squarely complied

the provisions of law laid down in either clause, namely, Clause

3(ii)(k) or 3(ii)(Gh) of the Resolution contained in Letter no. 1896

dated 5.3.2014 Rules. In the result, order dated 25.6.2018

(Annexure 7) being contrary to the rules/guidelines and the legal

positions discussed above, is hereby quashed. Respondents are

directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Chaukidar in

accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of

receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Writ petition stands allowed.

                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

Shashi
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          16.1.2023.
Transmission Date