Dismissed

The State Of Bihar and Ors. v. Vijay Kumar Chaurasia and Ors.

Patna HC18 May 2016L.P.A/491/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Patna, allowed condonation of delay in filing an interlocutory application. In the main appeal challenging a Single Bench order releasing pension due to a Settled Departmental proceeding, the Court held the original withholding of part pension unsustainable. However, since a subsequent order withheld 100% pension, the appeal was rendered infructuous and dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory Application No. 2190 of 2015 is disposed of with condonation of delay, I.A. No. 2189 of 2015 is dismissed, and the main Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed being rendered infructuous.

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Vijay Kumar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.491 of 2015

¶3

Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17325 of 2013 Along with Interlocutory Application No. 2190 of 2015 And

¶4

Interlocutory Application No. 2189 of 2015

¶5

===========================================================

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Department of Excise, State of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Commissioner Department of Excise, State of Bihar , Patna

¶8

The Secretary, Department of Excise, State of Bihar , Patna

¶9

The Joint Commissioner, Department of Excise, State of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

.... .... Appellant/s

¶11

Versus

¶12

Vijay Kumar Chaurasia, s/o Late Anuplal Chaurasia R/o Sanjay Sadan, Post Office Road , Punaichak, P.S. - Shastrinagar, Distt. - Patna.

¶13

…… Petitioner/Respondent 1^st Set

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner , Account Administration of Provident Fund, Finance Department , Bihar, Patna

¶15

The Accountant General Bihar, Virchand Patel Path Road, Patna.

¶16

.... .... Respondent/s

¶17

===========================================================

¶18

Appearance :

¶19

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Hari Shankar Roy, AC to PAAG For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Samrendra, Advocate.

¶20

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

¶21

and

¶22

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 18-05-2016

¶24

Re.: Interlocutory Application No. 2190 of 2015

¶25

The application is for condonation of delay of 193 days

¶26

in filing of the appeal.

¶27

For the reasons mentioned in the application, we find that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Consequently, the delay of 193 days in filing of the appeal is

¶28

Patna High Court LPA No.491 of 2015 dt.18-05-2016

¶29

2/3

¶30

condoned.

¶31

Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

¶32

Re.: Letters Patent Appeal No. 491 of 2015

¶33

The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned single Bench on 05.05.2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, respondent herein, was allowed, whereby 10% of the remaining pension, Leave Encashment as well as Gratuity was withheld without conclusion of the departmental proceeding.

¶34

The learned single Bench allowed the writ petition directing the appellants to pay remaining pension, Leave Encashment and Gratuity, while giving liberty to the appellants to take legal steps in accordance with Rules against the writ petitioner, respondent herein.

¶35

In the memo of appeal itself, it has been stated that the disciplinary authority has passed an order on 27.06.2014 whereby punishment of withholding of 100% pension has been imposed upon the writ petitioner in terms of the provisions of Rule 139 (C) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that the said order has been challenged by him in a separate proceedings.

¶36

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶37

Patna High Court LPA No.491 of 2015 dt.18-05-2016

¶38

3/3

¶39

find that the order of withholding of part pension, Leave Encashment and Gratuity even during the pendency of disciplinary proceeding was legally not sustainable and has been rightly set aside by the learned single Bench. But since now an order has been passed withholding of 100% pension, we find that the appeal is rendered infructuous, consequently, it is dismissed.

¶40

I. A. No. 2189 of 2015 also stands dismissed.

¶41

(Hemant Gupta, J)

¶42

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶43

Sujit/-P.Kumar U

The State Of Bihar and Ors. v. Vijay Kumar Chaurasia and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State Of Bihar and Ors. v. Vijay Kumar Chaurasia and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Union Of India and Ors. Vs Fulmati Devi

Vinod Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Dhirendra Prasad Shrivastava

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Kusheshwar Das

Mohammad Khurshid Alam Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Braj Mohan Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.