Umesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Judgment
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ====================================================== ORAL ORDER 02 01-03-2013 The petitioner was dismissed from Government service by order dated 18.06.1992 but with effect from 19.08.1991 he challenged his dismissal before this Court. This Court refused to interfere in the order of dismissal but only observed that the dismissal would be effective not retrospectively but prospectively from the date of order. This Court further held that even for the period 19.08.1991 to 18.06.1992, as he had not worked, he would not be entitled to any remuneration. The Court observed that he would be deemed to be in service up to his date of dismissal, i.e.,
18.06.1992. Upon this order, petitioner moved the authorities for payment of retiral dues. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries by his impugned order has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that Patna High Court CWJC No.22499 of 2012 (02) dt.01-03-2013 - 2 - petitioner’s dismissal having been upheld by the High Court, he cannot be held entitled to gratuity, leave encashment or pension. However, learned Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries held that the petitioner would be entitled to all amounts standing in credit to his provident fund account and his group insurance. Having considered the matter, in my view, no exception can be taken to the order of the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. It has been based on correct legal principles in correct perspective. However, if the provident fund and group insurance has not yet been paid, the same shall be paid to the petitioner immediately, is, 15 days from the service of this order on Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Bihar, Patna. In view of what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to entertain this writ application. It is dismissed accordingly. Trivedi/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.