Petitioner sought quashing of termination order against deceased father and release of dues. Court held relief academic as tenure (9y 10m) precluded pension eligibility and no recovery order existed against government.
Disposed the writ petition without probing merits due to academic nature and lack of pension eligibility.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11587 of 2010
===========================================================
Awdhesh Dwivedy S/O Late Dr. Jay Narayan Dwivedi R/O Village- Simri, P.O. + P.S. - Simri, District- Buxar.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 28-06-2018
reliefs:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
“ That this writ application is being filed for issuance of any appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions, commanding to the respondents and quash the order dated 10.09.2009 of the Gyapank No. 866 (Deshi Chikitsa) issued by the Joint Secretary of the Government ( Respondent no. 3) contained as Annexure-1 to this petition and further be pleased to direct to respondents to release the entire retiral dues and other dues of the late employee father of petitioner in favour of the petitioner and further be pleased to direct to respondents to follow the similar order of this Hon’ble Court in favour of the petitioner for making a retiral dues and pensionary benefits of deceased father of petitioner in favour of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11587 of 2010 dt.28-06-2018
2/5
petitioner and further be pleased to direct to respondents to dispose of the representation of petitioner contained as Annexure-7 and 8 to this petition and /or pass any order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”
impugned order, his service has been deemed to have been terminated.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11587 of 2010 dt.28-06-2018
3/5
Patna High Court CWJC No.11587 of 2010 dt.28-06-2018
4/5
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the relief sought for is purely academic without having any consequential or substantial effect. First of all, the order has been passed against the late father of the petitioner, who is no more. Secondly, and more importantly, by the said order, no penal consequences arise, inasmuch as, the authorities have not directed for any recovery of any amount which has already been paid to the late father of the petitioner. The same includes salary and all other emoluments. The only factor which could have been relevant today was if the accepted period in Government service of the late father of the petitioner was eligible for pensionary benefits. From the own showing of the petitioner and which is an admitted position, even if as per the initial Screening Committee report in favour of the late father of the petitioner, his service was accepted with effect from 01.06.1986, he superannuated on 10.04.1996. Thus, the service was of about nine years ten months. In terms of the provision of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), a minimum of 10 years of service under the Government qualifies for pension. Thus, even if the Court were to interfere in the order of dismissal, since the late father of the petitioner or even the petitioner had never challenged the acceptance by the State of the service of the late father of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.1986, no further
Patna High Court CWJC No.11587 of 2010 dt.28-06-2018
5/5
benefit can accrue to the petitioner even if the order of termination is interfered by the Court. Thus, purely for academic reasons, when the employee himself is dead and the order impugned has no adverse effect on the petitioner, the Court does not feel inclined to go into the merits of the matter and pass any order.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should interfere with an order terminating service of a deceased employee where the tenure does not qualify for pensionary benefits.
Whether the accepted service period of nine years and ten months qualifies for pension under Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
Whether a second Screening Committee can reopen the absorption of service previously accepted after superannuation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rakesh Kumar Pandey vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.Referred¶26
C.W.J.C. No. 8213 of 2004 dated 18.10.2005
Awdhesh Dwivedy
The State of Bihar
The Chief Secretary, the State of Bihar
The Joint Secretary of the State of Bihar
The Director, Health Department (Deshi Chikitsa)
The Secretary, Health Department
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
