LAWS(PAT)-2004-8-30

PARMESHWAR DAYAL VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On August 26, 2004
Parmeshwar Dayal Verma Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a retired clerk from the Government Polytechnic College, Purnea. The respondent authorities have withheld payment of the amounts in lieu of his unutilised leave (Rs. 59,336) and gratuity (Rs. 84,447) on grounds that (i) there are government dues against him amounting to Rs. 2,23,057/ - and he continues to be in unauthorised occupation of a government quarter allotted to him during his service tenure. The petitioner admits that he occupies the government quarter till date but he denies any government dues and on his behalf it is submitted that in any event no deduction/recovery can be made from his retiral dues in the absence of any departmental or judicial proceeding against him while he was in service or any proceeding under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules after his retirement.

(2.) THE petitioner retired from service on 31.1.1998. As there was some delay in payment of his retiral dues he came to this court in C.W.J.C. No. 9670 of 1999. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 5.11.1999 in terms of the directions earlier issued by the court in the case of Rukmani Devi, 1996(2) P.L.J.R. 348.

(3.) WHEN no further payments were made to him, the petitioner filed a contempt petition (being M.J.C. No. 847 of 2000) against the concerned respondents. In the show cause filed by the Principal of the Polytechnic in the contempt case it was brought to the notice of the court that books in very large number were missing from the that institutions library, during the period it was in the charge of the petitioner; the missing books were valued at Rs. 2,18,064/ -. Apart from the books, materials from the store worth Rs. 3,826/ - were also missing. Further, a sum of Rs. 1,167/ - given to the petitioner as development advance also remained unadjusted. Thus a sum of Rs. 2,23,057/ - remained due against the petitioner for adjustment/recovery of which he was given show cause notices. Copies of certain office orders and the show cause notices issued to the petitioner were made annexures to the show cause filed in this case.