NAND JEE SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by filing this writ application has prayed for directing the respondents for full payment of 225 days of unutilised earned leave instead of 182 days to the petitioner, together with interest over the said amount.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher and superannuated on 30.6.2000 as Assistant Teacher, Rajkiya Middle School, Bnarhopur, Ekma, District Saran. It is stated that in the month of February, 1999 the teachers of Government Primary and Secondary Schools went on strike all over the State, but the petitioner at that time being at the verge of retirement did not join the said strike. He remained present in the school every day during the strike period, i.e. February, 1999 to May, 1999 and had signed over the attendance register (photo copy Annexure 1) on each and every working day. A certificate to this effect was forwarded by the Area Education Officer, Ekma -1, Saran to the D.S.E., Saran. The School Committee also certified that the petitioner did not participate in the said strike and performed his duty in the abovementioned period (Annexure 2). In the circumstances, the petitioner was entitled for payment of 225 days unutilised leave encashment after retirement but he was given leave encashment only for 182 days instead of 225 days and thus, suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 14,638/ -. It is also stated that the D.S.E. issued office order vide Memo No. 3013 dated 8.11.2000 sanctioning leave encashment for 225 days, but subsequently another order was issued under the same Memo number and date sanctioning leave encashment only for 182 days (Annexures 3 and 4). The petitioner learnt that the Area Education Officer issued an office order vide Memo No. 586 dated 27.3.2000 stating therein that the petitioner was absent due to strike for the period 2.2.1999 to 21.3.1999. But as a matter of fact the petitioner had not gone on strike in the said period (Annexure 5). Vide Annexures 6 and 7 also the Area Education Officer informed the D.S.E., Saran that the petitioner did not participate in the strike in question. It was also learnt by the petitioner that the D.S.E., Saran then approved and sanctioned for payment of unutilised leave for the period of 225 days, but drawing and the disbursing authority has sanctioned for payment of leave encashment for only 182 days. Thus, leave encashment for 48 days to the tune of Rs. 14,638/ - was wrongly deducted. Hence, this writ application.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner tried to explain Annexure &aposA&apos (the application for earned leave in prescribed form filed by the petitioner himself for the period of 2.2.1999 to 21.3.1999 =48 days) and submitted that as delay was being caused in grant of retirement benefits as also encashment of unutilised earned leave, and illegal gratification was being demanded from him for release of the above benefits, the petitioner was compelled to file the above application. In fact, learned counsel further submitted that, the Annexure 1 of the writ application would clearly show that the petitioner has worked on each and every day and has also signed the attendance register and that the authorities concerned have also issued certificate to that effect, hence, the petitioner is entitled to gat leave encashment for 48 more days and that Annexure A is a document which had to be filed by the petitioner under pressure.