BHOLA JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, claiming restoration of commuted portion of his pension on completion of 10 years on the ground that at the time of his retirement Government resolution no. 646 dated 8.3.1983 was applicable and not the Government resolution no. 1851F dated 19.4.1990 and has prayed for quashing order dated 4.7.2002 issued by the Joint Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar, whereby representation filed by the petitioner on remand by the Hon ble High Court in C.W.J.C. no. 2727 of 2002, has been rejected and held that the restoration of pension would be done after 15 years with effect from 28.5.1990. Further prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to refund the amount deducted after August, 2000 alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.

(2.) PETITIONER retired from the post of Assistant Teacher on 31.3.1988 from K. High School, Kalikapur, Madhubani. He applied for commutation of pension in the month of April, 1989. Finance Department sanctioned for commutation of 1/3rd of his pension as per Resolution no. 646. dated 8.3.1983 and as per resolution the restoration was to be done in 10 years. The period of 10 years for the restoration of commutation of pension came to an end in August, 2000 but still the deduction from pension continued. The petitioner made a written protest before the Treasury Officer, Madhubani, against the continuation of deduction from his pension. The Treasury Officer directed the petitioner to move before the Finance Department or the Accountant General. The petitioner filed a representation before the Finance Department for restoration of commuted pension with effect from August, 2000 which was rejected by order dated 19.10.2001 stating that the restoration of commuted pension shall be made after 15 years from September, 1990. This order was challenged by filing C.W.J.C. no. 2727 of 2002. The writ application was disposed of and remanded back to the Joint Secretary, Department of Finance to consider the matter in the light of observation made by the Hon ble Judge. Thereafter, again the petitioner represented his case which has been rejected by the impugned order. The order has been challenged by the petitioner stating that going against the observation made by Hon ble High Court, his representation has been rejected. Further it has been stated that the order impugned is violative of resolution no. 646 dated 8.3.1983.

(3.) REGARDING the date of applicability of the circular of restoration, it was submitted that the resolution of 1983 made the facility of restoration effective from 1.10.1982. it provided that in all the cases of commutation that completed 10 years on or before that date, the commuted portion of the pension shall be restored with effect from that date. The resolution did not limit the application to cases whether pension was commuted after the cut -off date. This shows that commutation and restoration are independent transactions, the restoration will be governed by the Rules/ circulars operating at the time the restoration becomes due and not by the circular effective at the time the benefit of commutation is taken. If the facility of restoration was granted to cases of commutation done after the cut -off date i.e. 1.10.1982, the facility granted in 1983 would have become effective from 1992. By resolution no. 1851. dated 19.4.1990, the period of 10 years prescribed for restoration by resolution dated 8.3.1983 was extended to 15 years. Only with two exceptions