Disposed

Satya Deo Dwivedi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC22 Apr 2013CWJC/6724/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding unpaid salary during the period between the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement and its approval, the High Court held that the issue of actual work performance requires inquiry by a higher authority as it involves disputed questions of fact. The court directed the Principal Secretary to examine records and pass an appropriate order based on documentary ev

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of by directing Principal Secretary of Water Resources Department to examine records regarding petitioner's duty performance and pass order on salary claim within four months

Satya Deo Dwivedi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.6724 of 2013 (2) dt.22-04-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6724 of 2013

¶4

====================================================== Satya Deo Dwivedi, son of Late Namdeo Dwivedi, resident of MohallaKarailiya, P.S- Barh, dist- Patna.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2. the Secretary, Water Resources Department, government of Bihr, Patna. 3. the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Purnea. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Mahananda Flood Control Circle, Katihar. 5. the Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Katihar. .... .... Respondent/s

¶6

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶7

2 22-04-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties in respect of the following relief prayed in this writ application:-

¶8

"For issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner from 22.4.2010 to 31.12.2011 with increments."

¶9

From the perusal of materials on record it appears

¶10

that after the petitioner has been given voluntary retirement under the order of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Purnea dated 17.12.2011 he has remembered that his salary as also increments for the period 22.4.2010 to 31.12.2011 had not been paid.

¶11

Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, learned counsel appearing

¶12

on behalf of the petitioner with the help of the annexures appended to the writ application has tried to show that the petitioner kept on working even after filing his application for voluntary retirement

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.6724 of 2013 (2) dt.22-04-2013

¶14

and it was the mischief played by the Executive Engineer, his direct controlling authority, that he had scored over the attendance of the petitioner in the attendance register by recording that the petitioner on account of his physical deficiency was not present and did not work in the relevant period. Mr. Shahi, has also highlighted certain communication made by the Superintending Engineer, as also the Chief Engineer, from which he wants to infer that there was already a direction to the Executive Engineer, to make payment of salary to the petitioner for the aforementioned period.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that from the application of the petitioner dated 21.4.2010 seeking his voluntary retirement it would be very clear that the petitioner himself had stated that on account of his illness he was not in a position to discharge his duty as a government servant. According to the learned counsel for the State once this aspect becomes clear, the rest of the story of the petitioner that he despite such illness, which actually forced him to seek voluntary retirement, had kept on reporting in his office and the Executive Engineer, deliberately made some false entry in the Attendance register are disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into within the limited parameters of the writ jurisdiction.

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.6724 of 2013 (2) dt.22-04-2013

¶17

Considering the fact that the petitioner had sought his voluntary retirement on account of his own deteriorating health and had infact also mentioned in his application that on account of his illness that he was not in a position to discharge his duty, the issue relating to payment of salary for the period from 21.4.2010, the date on which he had sought voluntary retirement and up to 31.12.2011 when such voluntary retirement was allowed under the order of the Chief Engineer has to be inquired into by a higher authority. Since the Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer, have already taken their one view or the other this court would direct the Principal Secretary,of the Water Resources Department to examine from the records as to whether the petitioner had discharged his duty in the period 21.4.2010 to 31.2.2011. If he would find documentary evidence of such working of the petitioner or he being deliberately dissuaded or denied to work on his post under the order of the Chief Engineer, despite his being willing to work, he would pass an order for payment of salary of the petitioner to the aforesaid period. On the other hand if he would find that the petitioner had voluntarily ceased working even before getting his order of voluntary retirement and/or had abstained from his work on account of his physical constraint/

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.6724 of 2013 (2) dt.22-04-2013

¶19

illness he would pass an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary by giving reasons.

¶20

This exercise however must be completed

¶21

within a period of four months from the date of receipt / production of copy of this order by the Principal Secretary of Water Resources Department which will be produced by the petitioner along with his representation enclosing the evidence of his claim for payment of salary and the consequential increment for the aforementioned period i.e. 22.4.2010 to 31.12.2011.

¶22

With the aforementioned observations and

¶23

directions this writ application is disposed of.

¶24

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶25

Namita/-

Satya Deo Dwivedi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Deo Dwivedi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mumukshu Kumar Chaudhary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Hiranmay Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Khushbu Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.Jagat Narayan Nayak Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bhrigunath Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Jai Prakash Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.