Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1366 of 2003 ====================================================== Suresh Chandra Singh, son of late Gosain Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla-Chakaram (S.K. Nagar), near Devi Asthan, P.S. Budha Colony, G.P.O., Patna, retired Inspector-cum-Public Relation officer, Bihar Home Guard, Patna. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna through its Chairman. 3. The Secretary, the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 4. Thakur Rabindra Kumar, Director Security, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 5. R.R. Verma, I.G. Vigilance, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 6. The Electrical Executive Engineer, New Capital Division, PESU, Patna. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad Mr. Abhay Shanker For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 11 30-04-2013 The petitioner retired from the services of the Bihar Home Guard in the year 2001. He has filed this writ petition for quashing the last pay certificate as also the no dues certificate, which has been granted with qualification by the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”). These qualification or adverse entries in the aforesaid has affected the pensionary benefits of the petitioner which are all held up. There are several counter affidavits, supplementary counter affidavit and rejoinders on record.
Legal Reasoning
Having heard the parties at length, with their consent, this writ Patna High Court CWJC No.1366 of 2003 (11) dt.30-04-2013 - 2 -
Decision
petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. The petitioner was a permanent employee of the Bihar Home Guard. It appears that on 23.07.1986 he was sent on deputation to the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. On 02.12.2000 his services were returned to the parent department, i.e., the Bihar Home Guard. As a consequence of his reversion to his parent department, he had sought last pay certificate and no dues certificate from the Board. These were duly issued but they were qualified. They pointed out that there were certain dues as against the petitioner. In other words, so long as the petitioner did not clear those dues neither the last pay certificate nor the no dues certificate would be valid. As noted above, the petitioner superannuated in the year 2001, for the purposes of securing his retiral dues which were all held up, he had to accede to recovery of the dues as mentioned in the aforesaid certificates, which he has now challenged before this Court. At the very outset, it may be stated that so far as the dues aforesaid are concerned, there had been no proceedings against the petitioner nor the petitioner was noticed in that regard but that is besides point for reason which would be evident hereinafter. Patna High Court CWJC No.1366 of 2003 (11) dt.30-04-2013 - 3 - The total dues in dispute is Rs.42,607.50. Petitioner out of the said amount contests an amount of Rs.34,966.50. This is relatable to (i) miscellaneous advance of Rs.2132.54, (ii) transport allowance of Rs.9860 and (iii) electricity dues of Rs.22,973.96. The contention of the petitioner is that in relation to the first two, i.e., miscellaneous advance and transport allowance, no details are being given as to when these advance were made, what are the documents to substantiate it when demands were made from the petitioner and when petitioner fails to pay them. He has brought on record various vouchers in relation to miscellaneous advances totaling to Rs.3021.00, which according to him are the total advances he has taken. He has annexed the receipt showing payment thereof. He asserts that to his knowledge there is no outstanding miscellaneous advance. Then with regard to transport/traveling allowance is concerned, similar is the statement. He specifically stated that the Board is not supplying any details with regard to this allowance/advance and as per his calculation he has paid all amounts. He further asserted that no vehicle was ever allotted to him. In other words, in respect of these two demands, he asserts that in absence of any detail being furnished the demands cannot be Patna High Court CWJC No.1366 of 2003 (11) dt.30-04-2013 - 4 - enforced. Now, coming to the electricity charges, which is the third head, petitioner asserts that Board in its own supplementary counter affidavit has stated that dues of the petitioner in relation to electricity usage was Rs.41,868.35 detail month-wise chart as prepared by the Board and the net calculation have been marked as Annexures-K & K/1 to the Board’s own supplementary affidavit petitioner states that pursuant to a case subsequently lodged against the petitioner in relation to usage of electricity while in Board’s service, the Board itself had raised the demand of only Rs.41,868.35, which was noticed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.6956 of 2004 disposed of on 24.06.2004, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay the aforesaid amount. Petitioner paid the entire aforesaid amount vide receipt dated 09.07.2004 which is Anneuxre-12 to the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner. Petitioner asserts that as per petitioner’s terms of deputation, as contained in Anenxure-9 to the writ petition, apart from some specific privileges some privileges to the Board’s employees to be extended to him. This included one privilege which was in relation to payment of electricity dues. Patna High Court CWJC No.1366 of 2003 (11) dt.30-04-2013 - 5 - Petitioner asserts that Board being aware of this had prepared the accounts and made the demand which demand is apparent from Annexure-K & K/1 would show that they were prepared and made as on 28.01.2004 and are duly signed by the authorities. They are for the tenure of the petitioner’s residence in the Board. In the several counter affidavit/supplementary counter affidavit in so far as the first two disputed heads are concerned, i.e., miscellaneous advance and traveling/transport allowance, except saying that these amounts are outstanding as per the Board’s account, nothing more has been brought by the Board. Neither account statement nor any document has been produced in support thereof of that demand. In relation to electricity dues Board repeat that as per Board’s account an amount of Rs.22,973.96 is still outstanding. How it is so outstanding is not again explained and this state as per Board’s account it is outstanding. How the Board had earlier demanded only Rs.41,868.35 as per accounts furnished by the Board itself and appended to one of the supplementary counter affidavit vide Annexure-K series by the Board itself is not explained. Petitioner has filed Board’s own bill and payment receipt showing payment of the entire amount even then Patna High Court CWJC No.1366 of 2003 (11) dt.30-04-2013 - 6 - nothing is shown to the Court except bald statement that about Rs.22,000.00 is still pending. Having considered the matter, in my view, the stand of the petitioner has to be accepted. When the matter has been challenged before this Court and the matter has pending for almost a decade, the petitioner bringing on record various bills and receipts showing payments and asserting that no other dues was ever outstanding then it was for the Board to produce evidence in support of its claim. To the Contrary, after this writ petition had been filed on 04.02.2003, the calculation as contained in Annexure-K series of the Board was furnished by the Board itself in these proceedings. During pendency of the writ petition itself the petitioner cleared all these demands. In spite of all this, the Board continues to assert on basis of its accounts that Rs.22,000.00 is still payable it is not even admitting to reconcile its earlier stand. Its earlier detail account submitted by itself to this court does not even care to explain that how after Annexure-K series of its counter affidavit and how after petitioner having paid the same any further amount payments payable on that account. It is well settled by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Patna High Court CWJC No.1366 of 2003 (11) dt.30-04-2013 - 7 - Ors. since reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2181 and, in particular, paragraph-13 thereof, their Lordships had held that where a party asserts a point which is to be supplemented by documents then unless the documents are brought on record in a writ proceeding the pleading has to be rejected. There is essential difference between pleading in a suit and pleading in a writ proceeding. In a suit, facts are required to be proved in course of trial but in a writ proceeding factual assertions have to be supplemented by document not affidavit in support thereof. Thus, on all the three issues aforesaid, this Court is unable to accept the bald repeated statement of the Board that as per their records these amounts outstanding without annexing records in support thereof. To the contrary, annexing record which contradicted their stand as in the case of electricity dues. Thus, I am constrained to hold that three demands as aforesaid totaling to Rs.34,966.50 was not legally recovered from the petitioner. It was wrongly demanded and wrongly deducted by the State while settling the retiral dues of the petitioner. State is liable to refund the said amount immediately. If State having charged the said amount to the petitioner and has paid this amount to the Board, the State Patna High Court CWJC No.1366 of 2003 (11) dt.30-04-2013 - 8 - would be at liberty to seek reimbursement thereof but that would not detain the matter of refund to the petitioner. I, therefore, direct the Bihar Home Guard who by their Memo No.676 dated 15.03.2010 (Annexure-13 to the amendment petition) have directed recovery of the said amount from the petitioner’s retiral dues and payment thereof to the Board from the leave encashment of the petitioner to refund the said amount within a period of two months from today. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/-NAFR (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)