Patna High Court
Jhamlal vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal ... on 13 November, 2024
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17052 of 2021
======================================================
Jhamlal Son of Pankira Ram Resident of Village and P.O. - Agiaon, P.S. Sahar
(Agiaon), District- Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Engineer Irrigation Building Water Resources Department, Old
Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Executive Engineer, Small Distribution Division No. 08,Water
Resources Department Jamshedpur (Jharkhand).
5. The Treasury Officer, Secretariat Treasury Irrigation Building, Patna.
6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Madhav Krishna, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, AC to GA-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-11-2024
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner was duly appointed as a Treasury
Sarkar in the office of Water Resources Department Irrigation
Building, Bihar, Patna way back on 12.01.1980. On being
transferred to the State of Jharkhand in the year 1990, the
petitioner submitted his joining there and had been discharging
his duty; subsequently, his services had been returned to the
State of Bihar on 03.04.2006. Thereupon, he again submitted his
joining in the Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. Having served a satisfactory service, the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.17052 of 2021 dt.13-11-2024
2/6
finally superannuated on 31.10.2018. Despite his
superannuation way back in the year 2018, the petitioner has not
been accorded his rightful admissible retiral benefits and other
dues, he approached before the authorities concerned, but his
grievance has not been redressed. In the meantime, the
respondent no. 3 came out with the Letter No. 1805 dated
06.07.2020
, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been
directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,16,995/- against an electricity
bill. The petitioner on being aggrieved, approached before this
Court seeking quashing of the aforenoted Letter No. 1805 dated
06.07.2020 and also sought a direction to ensure payment of all
the admissible pensionary benefits and other dues, apart from
revision of the pay scale and the accrued benefit, thereof.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing
the impugned order whereby the petitioner has been directed to
pay a sum of Rs. 3,16,995/- against the electricity bill contended
that during the service period, at no point of time, the petitioner
has been informed with regard to the due electricity bill.
However, after one year and nine months of the retirement, the
respondent authorities came out with the impugned letter, that
too without there being any electricity bill and assigning the
stipulated period of electricity consumption, for which the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17052 of 2021 dt.13-11-2024
electricity bill remained due. It is also urged that once the
relationship of the petitioner is severed from the department, no
recovery can be made from the pensionary benefit of the
petitioner, that too without there being any provision under the
law in this regard.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
contended that the petitioner has been accorded provisional
pension and gratuity amount to the tune of 90 % on account of
the reason of breakage in service of the petitioner for the period
of 12 years 04 months and 11 days. It is also contended that
while the petitioner was posted in the State of Jharkhand, the
petitioner has failed to deposit the due electricity bill. In this
connection, the office of the Chief Engineer, Suwarnrekha
Project at Chandilya Complex, Jamshedpur vide its Letter No.
118 dated 22.01.2020, has informed the water Resources
Department, Bihar that a sum of Rs. 3,16,995/- is to be
recovered from the writ petitioner against electricity charges due
while he was posted there. In such premise, the petitioner has
been requested to deposit the said amount, so that the process of
payment of earned leave may be initiated.
6. This Court has anxiously heard the learned
Advocate for the respective parties and also perused the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17052 of 2021 dt.13-11-2024
materials available on record. The counter affidavit is not
specific to the point as to for which period, an amount of Rs.
3,16,995/- has been charged against the electricity consumption
nor the copy of the bill has been brought on record. The
respondent authorities are also silent as to what action has been
taken against the petitioner with regard to the breakage of
service, as occurred on different occasion. Admittedly, the
petitioner was superannuated way back on 31.10.2018 and, till
date, the issue with regard to the payment of electricity bill and
the breakage of service has not been resolved and the petitioner
has been deprived from his rightful retiral benefits and other
dues. The petitioner was transferred to the State of Jharkhand in
the year 1990 and his services was returned to the State of Bihar
in the year 2006. Even for the moment it is accepted that due
electricity charges bill was of the year 2006, can it be recovered
after a delay of 14 years, when the services of the petitioner has
already returned to the State of Bihar in the year 2006 and now
he has also superannuated on 31.10.2018, itself from the State
of Bihar. Law is well settled that even for a civil recovery claim,
there is a time limit to take recourse of civil suit within three
years, unless the delay is condoned by the competent Court. All
the more, had there been any due amount recoverable from a
Patna High Court CWJC No.17052 of 2021 dt.13-11-2024
government employees, the same must be settled before his
retirement.
7. This Court also thinks it apt to encapsulate herein
the relevant prescription of Electricity Act, 2003, especially
Section 56(2), which is as follows:
"56(2) Notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force, no
sum due from any consumer, under this section
shall be recoverable after the period of two years
from the date when such sum became first due
unless such sum has been shown continuously as
recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity
supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the
supply of the electricity."
No doubt, that when the claim is in regard to arrears
of house rents electricity charge etc, it shall be the duty of every
retiring government servants to clear all Government dues
before his retirement and in case it has not been paid, the same
can be adjusted from the retirement benefits. But, there must be
some specific order based upon cogent materials. In the case in
hand, there is nothing as such.
8. Taking note of the aforesaid facts and the materials
available on record, admittedly neither any action has been
taken against the petitioner nor a departmental proceeding has
Patna High Court CWJC No.17052 of 2021 dt.13-11-2024
been initiated with regard to the unauthorized absence or the
breakage of service. The respondent authorities, at this juncture,
cannot be allowed to raise all these points. The counter affidavit
also lacks any specific averments with regard to the period for
which electricity charges have been found to be payable. In such
circumstances, this Court left with no option, but to direct the
respondent authorities, especially respondent no. 3 to consider
the claim of the petitioner for final settlement of the retiral
benefits of the petitioner, preferably within a period of 12
weeks, from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
9. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed off
with the aforesaid direction.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.11.2024
Transmission Date NA
