PURUSHOTTAM JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for the State, learned Counsel for the High Court and learned Counsel appearing for the Accountant General, Bihar. The appellant - writ petitioner is a retired Judicial Officer. He filed writ petition bearing CWJC No. 5732 of 2000. to seek directions for finalization/payment of pension, gratuity and unutilized leave salary in accordance with law.

(2.) The main issue which arose for decision by the Writ Court was whether the appellant - writ petitioner will be treated to have superannuated from service on 31.12.1993 in accordance with his offer seeking voluntary retirement from that date or from 31.7.1995 when he attained the age of 60 years, the age of superannuation in accordance with directions relating to Judicial Officers given by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of All India Judges ' Association V/s. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 2493. The Writ Court gave no relief to the appellant -writ petitioner because he had been given the post retiral benefits by treating him to have voluntarily retired with effect from 31.12.1993. It was held by the Writ Court that the petitioner having opted for voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.1993, there was no mistake on the part of the respondent State in finalizing his retiral dues treating him to have retired from that date.

(3.) SOME important dates and facts may be noticed in brief for appreciating the rival submissions. The appellant - writ petitioner as a member of the Bihar Judicial Service faced certain allegations and was placed under suspension on 30.8.1993. Ordinarily, he would have retired on reaching age of 58 years on 1.8.1993 but as noticed earlier on account of judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges ' Association V/s. Union of India (supra) he received an automatic extension in the age of retirement by two years. The necessary direction of the Apex Court on this issue has been noticed in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Writ Court and there is no controversy between the parties that appellant - writ petitioner in ordinary course was to superannuate on reaching age of 60 years on 31.7.1995. After being placed under suspension on 30.8.1993, appellant - writ petitioner applied for voluntary retirement through a letter dated 15.9.1993 indicating that he wanted voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.1993. The Standing Committee of the High Court accepted the request of the appellant - writ petitioner in its resolution dated 28.9.1993 and accordingly made recommendations to the State Government which was competent authority to take appropriate decision under the proviso to Rule 74(b)(i) of the Bihar Service Code. The State Government in spite of recommendation by the Standing Committee of the Patna High Court, for one reason or the other, kept the matter pending at its own end and ultimately issued an order on 23.2.1998 accepting appellant 'soffer to seek voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.1993. It is not in dispute that as a fact the writ petitioner continued to be in Bihar Judicial Service under suspension till his superannuation on completing 60 years of age on 31.7.1995. At that time he was Sub Judge at Chaibasa.