Dismissed

Tapan Kumar Chatterjee v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC1 Apr 2016L.P.A/142/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna, in this intracourt appeal against a single bench order, held that the appellant's right to retiral benefits crystallized only upon the dismissal of the earlier Letters Patent Appeal in 2007. Consequently, the single bench was correct to award interest from that date rather than from the date of the original writ allowance in 1998, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed, maintaining the earlier order granting interest on retiral benefits from 27th February, 2007.

Tapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs The State Of Bihar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.142 of 2015 Arising out of

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15072 of 2011

¶4

=========================================================== Tapan Kumar Chatterjee, Son of Late Ganesh Chandra Chatterjee, resident of Mohalla:Nageshwar Colony, House No. 28, East Boring Road, Police Station - Buddha Colony, District:- Patna.

¶5

.... .... Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Human Resources Development, Higher Education , Old Secretariat , Patna. 2. The Chancellor, Patna University, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

¶8

The Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna.

¶9

The Registrar, Patna University, Patna.

¶10

.... .... Respondents

¶11

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.

¶12

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶13

and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 01-04-2016

¶14

I.A. No. 582 of 2015

¶15

The application is for condonation of delay of four days in filing the Letters

¶16

Patent Appeal.

¶17

For the reasons mentioned in the Interlocutory Application, we are satisfied that the appellant has shown sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay of four days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶18

Consequently, Interlocutory Application No. 582 of 2015 is allowed and delay of four days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

¶19

L.P.A. No. 142 of 2015

¶20

The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 21^st of August, 2014 in C.W.J.C. No. 15072 of 2011, whereby the appellant has been given interest on the retiral benefits at the rate of 5 per cent for the period 28^th of February, 2007 to 1^st of August, 2010.

¶21

The grievance of the appellant is that he is entitled to interest from the day his

¶22

Patna High Court LPA No.142 of 2015 dt.01-04-2016

¶23

2 /2

¶24

writ application was allowed on 27^th of January, 1998, whereas the learned Single Bench has granted interest after the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal on 27^th of February, 2007.

¶25

We do not find any merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The appellant was holding the post of Reader in the Department of Geology. He resigned from service on 16^th of November, 1994, which resignation was accepted on 19^th of June, 1995 but with effect from 1^st of July, 1994. The appellant claimed pension and retiral benefits, which the University declined for the reason that resignation from service amounts to forfeiture of past service. However, the writ application was allowed holding that the appellant is entitled to retrial benefits. Subsequently the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.

¶26

The issue whether after resignation, the appellant would be entitled to pension was not free from difficulty. The right in favour of the appellant crystallized only with the dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal on 27^th of February, 2007. Therefore, the learned Single Bench has granted interest on the retiral benefits after the said date.

¶27

The right to draw retiral benefits after resignation was an issue, which required judicial interpretation. Therefore, the rights of the appellant to get the retiral benefits crytalized with the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal only. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench which may warrant interference in the present intra court appeal.

¶28

The Letters Patent Appeal is, thus, dismissed.

¶29

(Hemant Gupta, J)

¶30

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶31

P.K.P./Sujit N.A.F.R.

¶32

Tapan Kumar Chatterjee v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapan Kumar Chatterjee 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

Manoj Kumar Pathak Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

The State Of Sbihar and Ors. Vs Lalit Kishore Prasad

Arvind Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Rai and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Wakil Singh Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Mithilesh Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.