Dismissed

The State Of Bihar and Ors. v. Parmeshwar Nath Mishra and Anr.

Patna HC2 Aug 2016L.P.A/768/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal against an order awarding retirement benefits. The bench upheld the lower order that absence periods qualify as service where no disciplinary action was taken, directing regularization of the absence via leave.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the period of absence was directed to be regularized by grant of leave.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.768 of 2015 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 23044 of 2011 =========================================================== 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶3

The Principal Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶4

The Additional Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶5

The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna

¶6

The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Muzaffarpur.

¶7

The Director, General Provident Fund, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶8

The Districts Provident Fund Officer, Muzaffarpur

¶9

.... .... Appellant/s

¶10

Versus

¶11

Parmeshwar Nath Mishra, Son of Late Devidyal Mishra, Resident of Village + P.O.- Sonbarsa, P.S.- Charpokhari, District Bhojpur.

¶12

The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna

¶13

.... .... Respondent/s

¶14

=========================================================== Appearance :

¶15

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, S.C. 16

¶16

Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C. 16

¶17

For the Respondent/s : Mr.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 02-08-2016

¶20

Patna High Court LPA No.768 of 2015 dt.02-08-2016

¶21

2/4

¶22

Re.:I.A. No. 3161 of 2015

¶23

The application is for condonation of delay of 1 year 67 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.

¶24

For the reasons mentioned in the Interlocutory Application, we are satisfied that the appellants have shown sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay of 1 year 67 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶25

Consequently, Interlocutory Application No. 3161 of 2015 is allowed and delay of 1 year 67 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

¶26

Re.: L.P.A. No. 768 of 2015

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 6^th of August, 2013 in C.W.J.C. No. 23044 of 2011, whereby the writ application has been allowed and the present appellants were directed to examine the claim of payment of retiral benefits to the writ applicant.

¶29

The writ applicant was appointed on 12^th of November, 1973 as Accounts Clerk. He attained the age of superannuation on 31^st of December, 2010. The claim in the writ application was for the payment of the retiral benefits.

¶30

Patna High Court LPA No.768 of 2015 dt.02-08-2016

¶31

3/4

¶32

The stand of the writ applicant was that the writ applicant was a mental patient and did not perform any duty from the year 2005 till the date of his superannuation but since no departmental proceedings were initiated before the superannuation of the writ applicant, therefore, the writ applicant is entitled to the retrial benefits.

¶33

The learned Single Bench found that since no proceedings were initiated for his continuous absence from 1997 to 2010 of the writ applicant, therefore, the said period is to be counted for the purposes of qualifying service. Liberty was given to the appellants to adjust absence period against the Earned Leave and also that he will not be entitled to any salary for the period of absence.

¶34

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and find no error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench.

¶35

For long absence of the writ applicant, the appellants have failed to initiate any action during the period of absence or even after retirement. Once no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against an employee for absence, the retrial benefits cannot be declined for the reason that he was absent from duty for long period. The direction of the learned Single Bench to hold that the writ applicant will not be entitled to salary and will not be entitled to Earned Leave is fair and reasonable.

¶36

We, therefore, dispose of the present Letters Patent

¶37

Patna High Court LPA No.768 of 2015 dt.02-08-2016

¶38

4/4

¶39

Appeal with a direction that the period of absence from July 1997 to December, 2010 will be regularized by grant of leave of the kind due to the writ applicant.

¶40

(Hemant Gupta, J)

¶41

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) P.K.P./Anand N.A.F.R.

¶42

The State Of Bihar and Ors. v. Parmeshwar Nath Mishra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State Of Bihar and Ors. v. Parmeshwar Nath Mishra and Anr.

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

Jai Prakash Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bihar State Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Bihar State Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Ranju Devi

The Union Of India and Ors. Vs Jai Kumar

Anirudh Giri Vs The State Bank Of India and Ors.