Allowed

The State Of Bihar and Ors. v. Ram Pati Das and Anr.

Patna HC12 Aug 2016L.P.A/872/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appears to be an order in a Letters Patent Appeal and an interlocutory application. The court condones delay in filing the appeal and, upholding the Single Bench's direction, directs the state to reconsider the interest claim in light of the Full Bench decision in Ram Gulam's case.

What did the court decide?

Condoned the delay of 48 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal; the LPA was disposed of directing the government to reconsider the interest claim in light of the Ram Gulam Full Bench decision.

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Ram Pati Das… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.872 of 2015

¶3

Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18574 of 2013 Along with

¶4

Interlocutory Application No.3681 of 2015

¶5

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

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Director-cum-Joint Commissioner, Directorate, General Provident Fund Officer, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, District-Patna.

¶9

The District Provident Fund Officer, District-Patna.

¶10

The Assistant Director, Cattle (D. V.) Large Cattle Development (Project) Field Level, Bikram, Patna.

¶11

The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Jehanabad.

¶12

.... .... Respondents- Appellant/s Versus

¶13

Ram Pati Das, son of late Sukhlal Das, resident of village and P.O.Sonabhandra, P.S. –Karpi, District-Arwal.

¶14

.... .... Writ Petitioner/ Respondent 1^st Set.

¶15

The Accountant General, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-800001.

¶16

…. …. Respondent/Respondent 2^nd Set.

¶17

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumal Tiwary, A.C. to G.A.-2

¶18

For the Respondent/s : None

¶19

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

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA)

¶23

Date: 12-08-2016

¶24

Re.: Interlocutory Application No.3681 of 2015

¶25

The application is for condonation of delay of 48 days in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶26

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

¶27

Patna High Court LPA No.872 of 2015 dt.12-08-2016

¶28

2/3

¶29

condone the delay in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶30

Interlocutory Application stands allowed accordingly.

¶31

Re.: Letters Patent Appeal No.872 of 2015

¶32

The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 10^th of July, 2014 whereby, the denial of payment of interest of the gap period vide Annexure-7 was quashed and the state was directed to reconsider the claim of the writ applicant in the light of the judgment in the case of The State of Bihar & Ors. Versus Ram Pavitra Singh {2010 (3) PLJR 906}.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that after the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Gulam Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No.1484 of 2006), decided on 7^th August, 2014, has examined the provisions of Bihar General Provident Fund Rules, 1948 and held that after retirement, an employee has to seek withdrawal thereof within six months. If he does not seek withdrawal within six months, then the interest will cease after the expiry of the six months. The judgment in Ram Pavitra Singh’s case (supra) was referred to and distinguished holding that in Ram Pavitra Singh’s case (supra), the application for withdrawal was made within six months of the superannuation.

¶34

Patna High Court LPA No.872 of 2015 dt.12-08-2016

¶35

3/3

¶36

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Bench. The direction issued by the learned Single Bench is to reconsider the payment of interest. Since the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Gulam’s case (supra) has considered as to in which circumstances, the interest is to be paid, the State Government shall consider the payment of interest in the light of the Full Bench decision.

¶37

The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶38

(Hemant Gupta, J.)

¶39

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

¶40

Sunil/-

¶41

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE	N. A.
Uploading Date	19.08.2016
Transmission Date

The State Of Bihar and Ors. v. Ram Pati Das and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State Of Bihar and Ors. v. Ram Pati Das and Anr.

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

Moni Bricks Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

M/s Daya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Awas Bricks Udyog Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bhojpur Zila Parisad and Ors. Vs Ram Kripal Bhagat and Ors.

Ramesh Prasad Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bishwanath Sah @ Biswa Nath Sah Vs The Union Of India and Ors.