BACHU PRASAD S/O LATE SHEO BALAK SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY-CUMCOMMISSIONER, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Accountant General.The judgment under appeal proceeds on the premise that the appellant had himself given in writing that excess payment had been made to him on account of wrong fixation of increments and which may be adjusted from his gratuity. A photo-copy of his letter was annexed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. He did not dispute or deny the correctness or genuineness of Annexure-A. Only when the counter affidavit was filed that as an after thought a ground was taken that Annexure-A had been obtained from him under duress. The rejoinder which took this ground stated in a very bald manner that respondent No. 3, coerced him to sign such a letter as a precondition to release of the retiral dues. There is not even mention of date on which the respondent No. 3 asked him to do so and, who was the incumbent holding the post of respondent No. 3. The fact that such an important ground was not taken by the appellant in the writ petition is a matter which cannot be lost sight off. We are satisfied that the grounds taken in the rejoinder are nothing more than ingenuinity to build up a case in stages in a desperate attempt to answer the counter affidavit, when the appellant himself was aware of the correctness of Annexure-A, submitted by him earlier in time but did not challenge it in the original writ petition or make any such statement.

(2.) The submission of the counsel for the appellant that the parties were not in equal bargaining position and the appellant was up against the might of the State with little option than to surrender his rights in a bid to obtain release of his other retiral dues does not impress us. If the appellant had actually been wronged by use of authoritative State power and he was aggrieved as a citizen, who came knocking the doors of the Court, we only need reiterate the view taken by us above that this foundational fact of Annexure-A having been obtained by duress and coercion should have been urged as a ground in the very opening lines of the writ petition itself.

(3.) There is no merit in the Appeal.