HRISHIKESH SAHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mihir Kumar Jha, J. In this writ application the petitioner, who has retired as Executive Engineer, Canal Division, Saharsa, initially made a prayer for payment of his pension, gratuity, G.P.F. leave encashment and other retirement benefits along with interest and cost.

(2.) During the pendency of this writ application the petitioner has been paid his retirement benefit. The delay in payment of retirement benefit has been explained in the counter-affidavit wherein it has been stated that some vigilance enquiry was pending against him. In fact, it is the case of the department that a proceeding under Rule 55A of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rule was initiated against the petitioner vide letter No. 2326 dated 22.8.1998 and the petitioner had retired without submitting his explanation to the said notice under Rule 55A of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rule. In fact, the petitioner submits that he had also submitted his reply in the Rule 55A proceeding on 12.4.1999. The department, however, after examination of the reply to the show cause and the fact that the allegation for which he was subjected to Rule 55A proceeding which is more than four years old, chose to close the proceeding by order dated 24.6.2004 and consequently paid all the amounts to the petitioner.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was unnecessarily harassed and that his payment of retirement benefit was wrongfully denied for a period of four years and as such he is entitled for payment of interest on the amount of retirement benefit paid to him belatedly after four years. In my view, such plea of the petitioner is fit to be rejected. The petitioner in fact was never exonerated on such. The proceedings against him under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rule were dropped and closed in view of the bar of four years under the said Rule. Moreover, the petitioner on his own showing as per earlier order of this Court had been paid almost all the retirement benefits except 10% provisional pension and some other retirement benefits which were kept pending for disposal of the Rule 55A proceeding. Such payments having been also made to him after dropping of the Rule 43(b) proceedings, nothing in fact survives for adjudication in this case.