RAM NIRANJAN KEDIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Financial Commissioner, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna, and the Commissioner -cum -Secretary, Higher Education, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna, are permitted to be impleaded as respondent nos. 8 and 7. Let two sets of the writ petition be served on Mr. Azfar Hasan, learned Standing Counsel -7, by Monday next failing which, this petition as against the respondents, except respondent no. 2 (the Chancellor), shall stand rejected without further reference to the bench. Respondent nos. 1 and 3 to 7 are represented by Mr. Azfar Hasan, Standing Counsel -7, and respondent no. 2 is represented by Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel.

(2.) INSOFAR as the question of maintainability of this writ petition at the instance of all the petitioners is concerned, Mr. Indu Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has made elaborate and illuminating submissions, and has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 716 : 1987 (Supp) 763 (A. N. Pathak and another vs. Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Defence and anr.), the Division Bench judgment reported in 1984 -Allahabad -46 (Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar and others, vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bharthana & anr.), the Division Bench judgment reported in 1983 Orissa -17 (Nilamadhaba Nanda & others vs. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology and anr.), and the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 1982 P & H -169 (Teja Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others). He has also relied on various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in support of his submission that this writ petition at the instance of more than one petitioner is maintainable. Having considered the submissions, I am convinced that this writ petition is maintainable. Office shall check whether separate sets of court fee has been paid.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned action is bad in law for various reasons. No act of fraud or mis -appropriation is sttributable to the petitioners. Secondly, the petitioners have refunded the entire post -retirement benefits with compound interest, as a result of which they are now left with no money putting them to extreme of hardship in the evening of their lives.