Ajit Kumar Choudhary .... … v. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi. Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5969 of 2023 Ajit Kumar Choudhary .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi. Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. Deputy Development Commissioner, Hazaribagh. Block Development Officer, Bishungarh, Hazaribagh. District Provident Fund Officer, Hazaribagh. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. …. …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ For the Petitioner For the Resp-State ------ ----- : :
Legal Reasoning
petitioner retired in the year 2018 and approached this Court in the year 2023 and therefore, he is stopped for seeking emoluments as claimed on the ground of limitation also. This plea of the respondents is not accepted to this Court as there cannot be any limitation for payment of admitted retiral benefits. (vi) Way back, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330, has held that retirement benefits are not bounty to be paid at the sweet-will of the respondents. (vii) In the present case, several representations were filed by the petitioner for payment of admitted arrears of salary and retiral benefits, but the same were not considered for one or other grounds and delay tactic has been adopted. (viii) In the year 2021 itself, this Court had passed an order in the case of Anand Prakash Narayan Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2020) 4 JLJR and thereafter in view of the order passed by this Court, the notification was issued by the Chief Secretary of the State for payment of admitted dues. The said notification has been thrown in waste paper basket. It is a case of glaring example in which even the admitted dues of salary have not been paid for last 21 years. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, since the petitioner has rushed to this Court for getting the retiral benefits as well as arrears of salary, I hereby direct the respondents to pay the entire arrears of salary and the entire retirement benefits for which the petitioner is entitled for, after making fresh calculation, if they want to do so, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the entire emoluments payable to the petitioner by way of arrears of salary and retirement benefits 4 shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date it was payable till the date of its actual payment. The respondent-State is also directed to pay a cost of Rs. 2,50,000/- additionally to the petitioner within the said period. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition
Arguments
Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, AC to SC-IV 7/ 13.05.2024 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner retired from the post of Junior Engineer from the office of Block Development Officer, Bushungarh, Hazaribagh on 31.01.2018 has constrained to knock the door of this Court for getting the entire retiral benefits including the arrears of salary with interest. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts which are necessary to be brought on record are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the undivided State of Bihar on 09.12.1982 in the office of Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Patna. He was transferred to the office of Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, Ranchi on 10.01.1983 and thereafter he was posted and transferred at different offices/places. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, he was posted in the office of Block Development Officer, Ramgarh on 12.06.2001 and ultimately, he stood retired on 31.01.2018. It is the specific case of the petitioner that due to want of last payment certificate, he was deprived to get the monthly salary from 01.09.1997 till the date of retirement. Therefore, he requested the respondent- authority to extend the entire retiral dues including the arrears of salary by 1 way of his representation dated 31.12.2018. On the letter received from the office of Block Development Officer, Hazaribagh, the Deputy Commissioner by letter no. 700 dated 20.6.2019 requested the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi to release the fund for payment of arrears of salary. Letter has also been written by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Hazaribagh to the Treasury Officer, Hazaribagh as well as Block Development Officer, Bishungarh for taking steps for payment of arrears of salary from 1.9.1997 to 31.1.2018. Representations were also made by the petitioners on 25.3.2021 and 14.09.2022 requesting for payment of arrears of salary as well as retiral benefits, but no heed was paid and hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argues that the petitioner has been deprived of his legal and constitutional rights to get the admitted arrears of salary and retiral benefits. He submits that on the representation of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh was kind enough to calculate the entire amount of salary as well as retirement benefits and request was made to the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, for sanction of the fund, as is evident from Annexure-4 of the writ petition. Learned counsel submits that despite the fact that the petitioner was superannuated in the year 2018 itself, yet the admitted dues of arrears of salary as well as retiral benefits have not been paid on the flimsy grounds. Learned counsel submits that when the petitioner came to know about some discrepancies, he sorted out the same, which is evident from Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Learned counsel further submits that even the plea of service book being not available with the respondents appears to be not reliable, as the service book has already been lying with the respondents and the respondents have also brought on record the service book as Annexure-E to the counter affidavit, which shows that the respondents are in the possession of service book. Learned counsel further submits that one of the discrepancies in the name of father of the petitioner has also been sorted out, as is evident from Annexure-8 to the rejoinder. 5. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned SC-IV representing the respondents submits that since the service book was not available with the respondents and 2 there were several discrepancies, the amount of retiral benefits as well as arrears of salary could not be made to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents by rising a finger on the petitioner submits that how the petitioner has survived for 21 long years without salary, it shows that he was not dependent upon the salary paid by the State Government. It has been submitted that if a direction is given to the respondents, the entire emoluments will be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a stipulated period. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons:- (i) It is not in dispute that the petitioner has worked to the satisfaction of the Department till his superannuation. It is also not in dispute that in entire service career, no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner or any adverse remark has been inflicted. (ii) The plea of non-availability of service book with the respondents is not reliable. Admittedly, the State/ Department is the custodian of the service book. On one hand, it is the contention of the respondents that they are not in possession of the service book and on the other hand, the respondents themselves now brought on record the service book by way of Annexure-E to the counter affidavit. Hence, the plea of the respondents that in absence of service book, what emoluments the petitioner was entitled to could not be done, is not acceptable to this Court. (iii) The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh way back in the year 2019 has calculated the entire emoluments and recommended it for payment to the State Government. As such, it is now not open for the respondent- State to take a plea that they are unable to calculate the emoluments for which the petitioner is entitled for in absence of service book. It appears that the respondent-State just to harass the petitioner taking false and flimsy pleas, which are not tenable. (iv) So far as discrepancy of GPF number is concerned, the same has already been clarified and a new GPF number has already been supplied to the respondent -authorities. 3 (v) From perusal of the entire documents brought on record and the arguments advanced by the parties, this Court is of the view that it is yet another glaring example how an employee is being harassed at the hands of the respondents. In the Welfare State, if the constitutional rights of an employee are infringed, there is no option available to him, except to knock the door of this Court. A plea has been taken that the
Decision
stands disposed of. R.Kr. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) 5