HARIHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

(2.) While working against the post of Road Sarkar in the office of Zila Parishad, Aurangabad, the petitioner retired from service with effect from 31/3/2019 on attaining the age of his superannuation. He has filed this writ application seeking direction to the respondent no. 3 for payment of his post retiral dues against General Provident Fund amount in part, gratuity, cash equivalent to un-utilized earned leave and other admissible benefits consequent upon implementation of 6th and 7th pay revisions, with statutory interest.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Zila Parishad wherein it has been stated, inter alia, that during the course of an audit conducted in 2019, a sum of Rs.14,41,293.00 was found to be outstanding against the advance which was made to the petitioner for execution of certain works. The statement showing position of advance outstanding against him as on 31/3/2013 has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit from which it transpires that advance outstanding against the petitioner as on 1/4/2012 was found to be Rs.14,49,523.00 out of which a sum of Rs.8,230.00 was adjusted during financial year 2011-12 and 2012-13. Accordingly, it is the case of Zila Parishad that the said sum of Rs.14,41,293.00 remained outstanding against the petitioner as on 31/3/2013. As has been noticed hereinabove, the petitioner retired six years thereafter. Nearly one year after the superannuation of the petitioner, the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Aurangabad (respondent no. 3) vide letter no. 180 dtd. 16/3/2020 is said to have asked the petitioner to deposit the said outstanding amount of Rs.14,41,293..00 The petitioner, it is stated, responded to the said communication mentioning therein that the bills had already been submitted by him earlier for adjustment but the same had not been done by the Accountant and the Assistant of Zila Parishad, Aurangabad. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was asked to state clearly as to when and where he had submitted the bills so that action could be taken for its adjustment failing which it would be deemed that the bills had not been submitted by him earlier and the outstanding dues taken as advance shall be realized from his retiral benefits.