Patna High Court - Orders
Lalmohan Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 December, 2015
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21921 of 2011
======================================================
Lalmohan Singh Son of Late Dashrath Singh Resident of Village-Katari,
Police Station-Bikram, District-Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative
Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna.
5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gajanan Arun
Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh
For the State : Mr. Ajit Pratap Singh, S.C.15
For the A.G. : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
5 09-12-2015Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ application has been filed seeking retiral benefits of pension and gratuity reckoning the period of service of the petitioner from 01.06.1992 as per the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Govind Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in 1992(2) P.L.J.R. 65.
From the materials on record and upon and hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is really surprised at the way the State respondents have acted in a matter which stands concluded by the previous orders of the Court and which was not required to be brought to the Court by the petitioner. Patna High Court CWJC No.21921 of 2011 (5) dt.09-12-2015
P2/4 The writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking absorption/regularization being CWJC No. 8693 of 1989, was disposed off on 02.09.1996 with a direction to the concerned authority to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the decision of the aforesaid Full Bench. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was appointed by order dated 08.10.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner superannuated in the year 2011. However, prior to his superannuation, he had applied to the Collector, Patna on 23.12.2010 with regard to settlement and payment of his retiral dues in which he had categorically raised the issue that the same be granted to him with effect from 1st June, 1992 in light of the order of the Court aforesaid. It appears that by order dated 23.05.2011 such request was rejected on the ground that he had been appointed on 08.10.1997.
The Court finds such order of the Collector/District Magistrate, Patna dated 23.05.2011, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ application, to be contemptuous as it is in the teeth of the directions of the Court both in CWJC No. 8693 of 1989 as well as Jai Govind Prasad (supra). Once the Court had held on 23.04.1992 that all those persons who had made applications for such appointments/absorptions were to be given appointment with effect from 1st June, 1992 and admittedly the Patna High Court CWJC No.21921 of 2011 (5) dt.09-12-2015 P3/4 petitioner having made application prior to that date which is obvious from the fact that he had filed the writ for the purpose of seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for regularization which is obvious from the order dated 02.09.1996 passed in CWJC no. 8693 of 1989. Further, the order of appointment dated 08.10.1997 being silent on the point as to from which date such appointment would be effective, the petitioner cannot be faulted to be under a bonafide impression that the appointment being pursuant to the order of the Court, which was specific that it would be with effect from 1st June, 1992 could not have imagined that after his retirement it would be construed to be with effect from 08.10.1997. The Court finds that the conduct and action of the respondents, besides being totally erroneous, is also contemptuous for the Court cannot give benefit of doubt to the officer who is supposed to be capable of and also expected to understand the orders of the Court. The Court has no hesitation to hold that all the incumbents on the post of District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna right from the period 23.05.2011 till date are liable to be appropriately dealt with for such conduct.
Accordingly, let all the persons who held the post during the aforesaid period, namely, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Dr. N. Patna High Court CWJC No.21921 of 2011 (5) dt.09-12-2015 P4/4 Saravana Kumar, Mr. Manish Kumar Verma, Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Dr. Pratima and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal be present before the Court to show cause as to why the Court may not pass appropriate orders against them for having deliberately and willfully not acted in accordance with the order of the Court dated 02.09.1996 passed in CWJC No. 8693 of 1989 read with the order passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Govind Prasad (supra) when the case shall be listed under the heading "For Orders" on 21st December, 2015.
The Court also holds that the petitioner is entitled for payment of his retiral dues reckoning his service with effect from 1st June, 1992, though notionally till 08.10.1997. Let all pensionary benefits be paid to the petitioner in the abovementioned terms within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order before the respondent no. 3.
Learned State Counsel shall communicate the order to the concerned officers for compliance.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Saif/-
U