PREM NATH THAKUR Vs. BIHAR STATE FOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY virtue of order dated 14.9.2002 the respondent Corporation compulsorily retired the petitioner by invoking powers under Rule 29(B) under the Conduct and Disciplinary Rules of the Corporation. The order states that in lieu of three months notice, three months pay was being paid to the petitioner as valid compliance of the Rule in question.

(3.) RESPONDENTS were granted indulgence and they were directed to file a categorical affidavit in this regard whether the petitioner was paid three months salary in lieu of notice in question. A supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 sworn by one Mahesh Prasad Singh, the Incharge District Manager, Saran at Chapra has been filed. A statement has been made in paragraph 4 that the Corporation had directed payment of three months salary to the petitioner but the then Incharge District Manager, Saran unfortunately and by mistake did not make the payments. In paragraph 5 they state that later on three months salary was calculated and it was sent by cheque no. 28686 dated 23.12.2006 through registered post on the home address of the petitioner but the same was returned unserved with the endorsement 'refused to accept '. The contention of the respondents, therefore, is that insofar as they are concerned there was compliance with Rule 29(B).