NAND KISHORE PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Binay Kumar Singh for the petitioner, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, learned junior counsel to Advocate General, and Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad for respondent no. 3 (The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.8.2004 (Annexure -

(2.) ), and the consequential order dated 29.9.2004 (Annexure -A to the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent), issued by the Block Development officer, Raghopur, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 76,880.00 alleged to have been paid in excess by way of death -cum -retiral gratuity. The petitioner seeks two more reliefs. The petitioner 'spension was fixed at Rs.1,225/ -, and he was paid a total sum of Rs. 1,25,984.00 by way of gratuity. It is submitted that he is entitled to higher benefits. 2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in Saharsa Collectorate on 2.2.1955. He superannuated from the services of the Bihar Government with effect from 31.8.1996, as Head Clerk, Supaul Collectorate. He complains before this Court that his pension has been fixed at a rate lower than his entitlement, and a sum of Rs. 76,880.00 has - erroneously been recovered from his post retirement benefits paid to him by way of gratuity. He lastly submits that the petitioner was, while in service, entitled to Super Selection Grade with effect from 1.8.1994 which, if granted, will result in payment of differential amount of salary, higher rate of pension as well as gratuity.

(3.) I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. In so far as the claim for Super Selection Grade with effect from 1.8.1994 is concerned, respondent nos. 1 and 2 have in their counter affidavit categorically stated that the petitioner 'sturn for the Super Selection Grade not reached so long he was in service. No person junior to him was granted the benefit and, in fact a number of persons senior to him did not get it so long the petitioner was in service. In that view of the matter, it appears to me that no case of discrimination or any illegality is made out. The contention is, therefore, rejected.