Disposed

Jatadhar Jha v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC4 Jul 2012CWJC/7823/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to condone unexplained delay in a pension fixation writ petition. While the application is disposed, the respondents are directed to grant pension benefit for three years prior to filing the writ and address GPF interest claims with retroactivity restricted to active service periods.

What did the court decide?

Pension benefit to be granted for three years prior to filing the writ application; GPF interest to be payable only from the date of filing the writ application.

Jatadhar Jha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7823 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Jatadhar Jha S/O Late Gangadhar Jha R/O Village And P.O.- Madanpur, P.S.- Araria (Madanpur), District- Araria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Principal Secretary Department Of Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 4. District Education Officer, Araria, District- Araria 5. District Programme Officer (Establishment) Araria, District- Araria 6. District Provident Fund Officer, Araria 7. Accountant General (A And E)-Ii, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarangdhar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shyam Kishor Sharma Ga3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 3 04-07-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is submitted that the petitioner superannuated from the post of Headmaster of a Middle School on 30.11.1999. His pension has wrongly been fixed and he is entitled to grant of pension after refixation of his pay scale. As per his entitlement he is entitled to the scale of Rs. 9750/- from 5.7.1999 which has wrongly been fixed at Rs. 8750/-. Counsel for the State submits that the Pension Payment Order was drawn up as far back as 23.4.2002. He further relies on 2009 (2) PLJR 74 (SC) (Syed Abdul Kadir v. State of Bihar) in context of Fundamental Rules 22C for fixation of pay scale of Headmaster to be relevant for consideration more particularly at para 30 of the judgement. It is next submitted that matters of pay scale involve a level of complexity and the petitioner after long years of superannuation and the judgement of the Supreme Court without approaching the authorities first has filed the writ

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.7823 of 2012 (3) dt.04-07-2012

¶4

¶5

application straightaway.

¶6

The Court upholds the submission on behalf of the State that the matters of pay scale have an element of complexity and the Court should not interfere with the same straightaway unless the authorities had first applied their mind to any grievance that a person may have. If the superannuation of the petitioner on 30.11.1999 was not sufficient to defeat his claim on grounds of delay, there is no explanation in the writ application why after the judgement in Syed Abdul Kadir (Supra) was delivered on 16.12.2008 the petitioner did not seek appropriate relief till he filed the writ application on 4.4.2012.

¶7

Merely because it may be related to pensionary rights, the Court is not satisfied to condone the delay which is totally unexplained, and there is no whisper in the pleadings to condone the delay. It shall undoubtedly put financial liability on the State which may not have made provisions for it in view of the failure of the petitioner to raise any grievance. But that cannot be sufficient to deny the rights of the petitioner outright if there are any legitimate dues payable to him. It is therefore considered appropriate to observe that the petitioner shall be held entitled to the benefit if any for a period of three years prior only to the filing of the writ application relying on the judgement reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 (Union of India v. Tarsem Singh) holding as follows at para 8:-

¶8

8. In this case, the delay of sixteen years would affect the consequential claim for arrears. The High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to sixteen years, and that too with interest. It ought to have restricted the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances.

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.7823 of 2012 (3) dt.04-07-2012

¶10

¶11

Let the respondents consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law and dispose it by a reasoned and speaking order to be complied with in the manner discussed if they are otherwise satisfied.

¶12

The petitioner may also file further representation if he has any grievance that his GPF from 1964 to 1976 has not been paid. If the claims for GPF are justified the entitlement for statutory interest shall only be for the period that the amount was not legitimately paid while in service or at the time of settlement of retiral benefits. The interregnum when the petitioner took no steps shall not entitle him for statutory interest on GPF. The statutory interest shall again be payable from the date of filing of the writ application i.e. 4.4.2012.

¶13

Let the order be complied preferably within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order.

¶14

The writ application stands disposed.

¶15

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶16

Snkumar/-

Jatadhar Jha v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatadhar Jha v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birendra Prasad Vs Rajendra Agricultural University and Ors.

Manzar Imam Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Haridwar Prasad Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Rintu Kumari @ Rintu Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.sachindra Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.pushpa Jha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.