Patna High Court
Arjun Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 November, 2017
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6969 of 2016
===========================================================
Arjun Kumar, Son of Shri Ram Chandra Prasad, Resident of House No. 159, 3rd
Cross, 20th Main, BTM 1st Stage, Bangalore-560068.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Secretary, Department of Environment & Forest, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Department of Finance, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Accountant General, Bihar.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Advocate
For the State : G.P. 16
For the Accountant General : Mr. Ram Yash Singh, Advocate
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 13-11-2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State and
the Accountant General.
2. The petitioner has moved this Court for the
following reliefs:
"i) For the direction to the
respondents authorites to pay suitable
interest on the post retiral benefits
including the provident fund, gratuity and
other benefits including leave encashment
for the period 2003-04 until 2012-13
during which the petitioner was
constrained to litigate owing to erroneous
interpretation of Rule 16 of the All India
Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits)
Rules 1958 by the respondents.
ii) For declaration that the
respondents have wrongly withheld the
retiral dues of the petitioner from 2003
Patna High Court CWJC No.6969 of 2016 dt.13-11-2017
2/5
until 2010 when the pension was finally
fixed by the respondents.
iii) For direction upon the
respondents that the petitioner be paid
suitable statutory interest as he was
entitled of timely payment/disbursement of
all post retiral benefit and was only paid in
the year 2010 onwards much later after the
law having being settled in that regard.
iv) The Hon'ble Court may any
other order/orders which deem fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case and
within the ends of equity, justice and good
conscience".
3. In essence, the prayer is for payment of interest
on the delayed retiral benefits paid to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement from the Indian
Forest Service in the year 2003 but the same was wrongly rejected by
the State Government in January, 2004 against which he moved
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench in O.A. No.
183 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by order dated 06.05.2008.
Being aggrieved, he moved in C.W.J.C. No. 9909 of 2008 and a
Division Bench of this Court by order dated 23.12.2008 has held that
resignation of the petitioner had to be accepted and has further
directed that the retiral benefits to which he was entitled be settled
and paid to him at an early date. Learned counsel submitted that
thereafter by order dated 08.09.2009, the State Government had
Patna High Court CWJC No.6969 of 2016 dt.13-11-2017
3/5
accepted the request for voluntary retirement of the petitioner with
effect from 01.06.2003, but the payment having been made in the
year 2009 onwards, he is entitled to delay for the period the amount
remained unpaid. In support of the contention, learned counsel has
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
D. D. Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. reported
as (2014) 8 SCC 894 as well as of this Court in the case of Shyam
Sundar Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported as 2017 (1) PLJR 960
and also Chandrabilas Sharma vs. State of Bihar reported as 2017
(2) PLJR 1.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The primary reason
for not doing so is the fact that in the earlier round of litigation before
the Central Administrative Tribunal on the point of rejection of his
request for voluntary retirement, the case was dismissed and a
Division Bench of this Court had reversed the same by order dated
23.12.2008. Thus, the issue of the petitioner being allowed to voluntary retire was still sub-judice before the Court and has finally fructified in favour of the petitioner by order dated 23.12.2008. In fact, in the first round the issue was decided against the petitioner by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Thus, no fault or laches can be attributed to the respondents for not having given the post retiral dues Patna High Court CWJC No.6969 of 2016 dt.13-11-2017 4/5 of the petitioner, as, at least till 23.12.2008, the issue whether the petitioner would be considered to have voluntary retired or not was still unclear. This is one part of the matter. The other equally important aspect is that in the order of the Division Bench dated 23.12.2008, it has been held that the petitioner is entitled to retiral benefits in terms of the Rules and that the same be settled and paid to him at an early date. Thus, when the Division Bench itself has directed for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner at an early date, the issue of payment of interest was required to be raised before that very Bench at the relevant time, and the same not having been done cannot be considered by this Court, moreso, for the reason that though the Division Bench had directed for settlement and payment of retiral benefits of the petitioner, but had only observed that the same be done at an early date. Pursuant thereto, the resignation of the petitioner being accepted by a formal order dated 08.09.2009 and payment of his dues starting thereafter, cannot be said to be of a nature which would entail payment of interest. As far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to payment of interest on the delay, the Court finds that the foundational facts in those cases were quite different to that in the present case. In the said cases, the persons had superannuated and as a matter of right, without there being any fault or laches of those Patna High Court CWJC No.6969 of 2016 dt.13-11-2017 5/5 petitioners, payment not having been made for a long period, the Court had directed for payment of interest. In the present case, till December, 2008 the acceptance of the resignation tendered by the petitioner voluntary retired was still hanging fire. Thus, there is no similarity between in the facts of those cases to the facts of the present case.
6. In view thereof, the writ petition stands dismissed.
7. It goes without saying that the petitioner may file representation before the authority concerned for consideration, but the decision on the same shall not be amenable to judicial review in light of the discussions made in this order, since, at the cost of repetition, the matter relating to payment of retiral benefits in terms of the earlier Division Bench order of this Court dated 23.12.2008, which has not given any directions for payment of interest and has rather directed that retiral benefits be settled and paid at an early date, cannot be gone behind, interfered with or modified in any manner.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anand Kr.
AFR/NAFR U