Disposed

Jai Nath Tiwari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC14 Sept 2023CWJC/6496/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Class-IV Khalasi of the Water Resources Department sought payment of retiral dues including provident fund and pension, which were withheld after the State alleged overpayment due to miscalculated service length. The Court held the State's letters misconceived and directed payment of all post-retiral benefits.

What did the court decide?

Letters No.1347 dated 16.11.2022, No.1379 dated 22.11.2022 and No.18 dated 06.01.2023 quashed/held misconceived; authorities directed to pay all post-retiral benefits including pension.

Jai Nath Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6496 of 2023

¶2

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

¶3

Jai Nath Tiwari(male), aged about 63 years, Son of Late Basudeo Tiwari, Resident of Village- Dudhni Dehri, P.S. - Tilauthu, District - Rohtas.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna.

¶7

The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehri District - Rohtas.

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, Sone Canal Modernisation Circle, Dehri.

¶9

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Sone Barrage Division, Indrapuri, Dehri.

¶11

The Accountant General, Bihar Virchand Patel Path, Patna.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, GA-2 For the A.G., Bihar : Mr. Vivekanand Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 14-09-2023

¶14

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned

¶15

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned GA-2 appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Vivekanand Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General, Bihar.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is aggrieved for nonpayment of retiral dues under different heads including Provident Fund which has not been granted to the petitioner, who had retired from the post of Khalasi , which is a Class-

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.6496 of 2023 dt.14-09-2023 2/4

¶18

IV post, on 31.05.2015 due to incorrect calculation as contained in Letter No. 18 dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure-6). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner cannot be penalized for any incorrect calculation made on behalf of his Controlling Officer. The petitioner is a Class-IV employee and recovery after the period of more than 8 years of his retirement is not sustainable in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and anr. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the petitioner with respect to his entitlement for receiving pension is also covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Amrika Devi and

¶19

Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. passed in C.W.J.C No. 10063 of 2012 and in this regard the petitioner has relied specifically on Paragraph No. 46 of the said judgment.

¶20

Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that petitioner is not entitled for any pensionary benefit, more so, there is no question of making payment of pension as already mistake has been

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.6496 of 2023 dt.14-09-2023 3/4

¶22

committed while calculating the retiral dues of the petitioner and as such the petitioner was paid at an enhanced rate.

¶23

Considering the rival submissions, this Court is not satisfied by the objection raised by the State particularly, in Paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit which is reproduced hereinafter:

¶24

“8. That vide Letter No. Pension 1347 dated 16.11.2022 the AG Bihar had requested the Executive Engineer, Sone Barrage division Indrapuri to verify the eligibility of the Petitioner for payment of pension in the light of Letter No. 10710 dated 18.10.2013 issued by the Finance Department Government of Bihar as in the light of Letter No. 10710 dated 18.10.2013 issued by the Finance Department Government of Bihar Patna as the total length of service for payment of pension is 9 yeas 11 month and 26 days whereas in the pension form it is mention as 26 years 7 days”

¶25

Accordingly, I find that the Letter No. 1347

¶26

dated 16.11.2022 and Letter No. 1379 dated 22.11.2022 are hereby held to be misconceived and not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶27

The concerned authority is directed to recall the Letter No.18 dated 06.01.2023 and make payment of all

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.6496 of 2023 dt.14-09-2023 4/4

¶29

the due post retiral benefits to the petitioner including pension.

¶30

The petitioner, if so desired, may also file

¶31

detailed representation to facilitate payment of pension.

¶32

With the above observations and directions,

¶33

the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶35

nilmani/-

¶36

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	18.09.2023
Transmission Date	N/A

Jai Nath Tiwari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Nath Tiwari v. The State of Bihar

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

Sanjay Prasad and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Mostt. Sunita Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Hari Narayan and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Md. Serajuddin Khan Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Prasad Vs The Bihar State Financial Corporation

Pradeep Kumar Sinha Vs The Union of India