LAWS(PAT)-2000-2-9

ROUNAK LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On February 01, 2000
Rounak Lal Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sought for quashing of the orders contained in Memo no. 806 dated 30th October, 1996, Memo no. 872 dated 27.11.1996, notice dated 2.1.1997, 20.2.1997 and 11.4.1997 of the Circle Officer, Goroul, Vaishafi, contained in Annexure -1 series, whereby he has been communicated that the provisional pension and gratuity amounting to Rs. 31,686/ - paid to him has been rejected by the Accountant General, Bihar vide letter no. 368 dated 9th October, 1996. and further he has been directed to deposit the aforesaid amount in the Circle Office, failing which necessary action shall be taken for attachment of his property to recover the said amount. Petitioner has also sought for declaration that he is entitled to receive pension, gratuity and all other retirement benefits at par with the employees of the State Government.

(2.) PETITIONER held the post of Dafadar in Beet No. 5 under Goroul Police Station, in the district of Vaishali before his superannuation with effect from 31.12.1991. After his retirement, petitioner submitted his pension papers before the Circle Officer, Goroul, who vide his letter no. 369 dated 17.6.1996 forwarded the same to the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. Meanwhile, he was paid provisional pension and gratuity of Rs. 12,380/ - and Rs. 19,306/ - and his provisional pension of Rs. 394/ - was also fixed. However, later the Accountant General rejected his claim for grant of pension and gratuity and accordingly vide impugned orders he was directed to deposit the aforesaid amount.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Circle Officer, Goroul (Respondent no.5) also the similar objection has been taken. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and the Secretary, (Home), (Respondent nos. 1 & 2) taking the similar objection. It is stated that since the petitioner retired on 31.12.1991 and completed only two years of service, so he did not possess the qualifying service for payment of pension and gratuity, and thus, not eligible for the same.