MD.WAZAIR v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors

submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that he has not suppressed the fact about filing of the writ petition and he had mentioned all the facts. The case of the appellant is pending - 2 - since more than seven years and in spite of filing repeated representations, his grievances are not being considered and no steps have been taken for payment of his retiral benefits. Annexure-13 is the order dated- 23.09.2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No.5879 of 2002. In that case his case was that his pension and gratuity were not sanctioned finally and he was getting only provisional pension. In that case considering the submissions of both parties this Court passed the following orders:- “ Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the proper authorities through representation for payment of proceeds of GPF along with permissible statutory interest as well as for interest over delayed payment of other retiral benefits as per government’s policy decision. Such representation, if filed, must be disposed of in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of its filing and admitted proceeds of GPF along with statutory interest as per law and other dues on account of interest as per policy decision of the government, found payable should be paid to the petitioner within a further period of one month thereafter. So far as petitioner’s claim for final pension and gratuity - 3 - is concerned, the concerned authorities are directed to take required steps expeditiously and it is expected that a final decision shall be taken in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within six months.” After the aforesaid order the appellant approached the respondent-authorities by filing representation along with the order of this Court. Thereafter the appellant filed M.J.C.No.588 of 2002 on the ground that the direction of this Court was not fully complied. It was submitted that the second time bound promotion was rightly given to the petitioner and post retiral benefit, such as, pension and gratuity should have been fixed on that basis. In that M.J.C. petition this Court passed the following orders:- “ This application is accordingly disposed of with a liberty that petitioner may challenge the decision of the authority in respect of his 2nd Time Bound Promotion through appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and in case he succeeds in such dispute then it goes without saying that pension and gratuity shall be revised and decided in accordance with law. Petitioner is also granted liberty to file a representation in respect of calculation of interest over the amount of G.P.F. and in case it is found that some - 4 - interest is still payable to him the same should be paid to him without delay.” For his fixation of pay and other consequential fixation of pension/ gratuity, the appellant again approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.13669 of 2003 in which this Court given a liberty to the appellant- petitioner to move the District Provident Fund Officer, Sitamarhi for redressing his grievances. The said order is Annexure-14 to the writ petition. Thereafter C.W.J.C. No.5028 of 2004 was filed for quashing of the order of the Accountant General, Bihar but since there was a general direction in C.W.J.C. No.7054 of 2003, the said writ petition was disposed of in the said terms. The said general direction can been seen at Annexure-17 to the supplementary affidavit. This writ petition was filed for quashing letter dated 6.6.2003 issued by the Chief Account Officer in the office of the Accountant General ( A & E ) II, Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder he had directed for recovery of excess amount of pension etc. and for directing respondents to pay part amount of G.P.F. with statutory interest and part amount of gratuity which has been withheld without any valid reasons. - 5 - The earlier writ petitions were disposed of by granting liberty to the appellant who was a poor employee. His previous filing of the writ petition cannot be a ground for rejecting the present writ petition. In none of the cases, his causes were considered, on merit. He was moving from pillar to post by filing representation but his case was not considered by the court on merit. Hence, dismissal of his case merely because he had filed his earlier writ applications for different causes cannot be accepted. Therefore, judgment of the learned Single judge is set aside and the matter has to be dealt on merit. Accordingly, We allow this appeal. Let C.W.J.C. No. 12002 of 2004 be presented before the learned Single Judge, dealing with the matter. ( J. B. Koshy, CJ ) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J ) BTiwary/