DAROGA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order on the writ petition should have been enough caution for the petitioner -appellant not to chase his case any further. It was a hint to the petitioner to bide his peace. But the petitioner does not believe in the proverb : Let sleeping dogs lie. He chases the order on the writ petitior on the letters patent appeal, in effect, seek ing a direction that the amount of 52,397 which had been deducted, be refunded.

(2.) WHAT exactly is this the amount or which the petitioner now wants refund. The petitioner is an ex - Lans Nayak from the military. After discharge from the military he was given a job as a Prison Warder in 1971. When he joined his service, "as per the discharge slip from the military his age was as 33 years on 24.2.1971". This quotation is from the order on the writ petition. This meant that his retirement was in 1996. Whether it was during the month of February or at the end of February is not the issue.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit, the submission is, to the effect, that the service book was available at Saharsa in 1994 itself. Between two versions somebody seems to be taking advantage of the situation of the service book which was not being located. But, with no order on extension of service, the petitioner says he managed to work for one year more. The petitioner thought it was a short term gain and not realizing that no sooner he retired, the amount, which was paid to him for the extended service, which he arranged for himself, would be deducted. The petitioner now says that he had worked for those periods but he is not liable to refund the amount. The question is where is the order on the extension of his service?