INDRADEO PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner had initially sought for a direction commanding the respondents to make payment of his post retirement benefit i.e. pension, gratuity, unutilised earned leave etc. on the basis that he had retired as Assistant Teacher on 31.7.2001 from the office of the Block Education Extension Officer, Ghosi (South). In the main writ application, further prayer had been made to for a direction for payment of salary to the petitioner for the period 7.7.1995 to 31.7.2001 after deducting the amount of subsistence allowance already paid to him.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the writ appiication the petitioner has filed i.A. No. 4270/07 wherein a prayer has been made to quash the order dated. 22.3.2006 whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for grant of post retirement benefit has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was a convicted person and was thus not entitled for payment of post retirement benefit. The respondent -District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad in the impugned order, however, has directed for payment of amount of provident fund, group insurance as also difference of salary for the period 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973. Sri Ganesh Prasad Singh learned Senior Counsel for petitioner while making elaborate submissions for grant of aforementioned relief has firstly contended that the petitioner had an exemplary service record for a period of nearly 30 years i.e. till 20.8.1990, when he was convicted in a criminal case for offence under Section 302/11A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and as such he could not be deprived of his right to receive post retirement benefit including monthly pension only on account of his aforesaid conviction. It has been further submitted that such a right to receive pension to a retired employee cannot be taken away on mere whims and fancies of the authorities inasmuch as the expression "misconduct" as has been used in Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules in order to deprive of an employee of being paid his retirement benefit including monthly pension must be so shocking to the conscience of any prudent person so as to make him believe that the person concerned in service was not entitled for payment of pension. On the other hand counsel for the State with reference to averments made in the counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner holding the post of a teacher was expected to have an exemplary moral and character but his conviction for a serious offence went to show that his conduct was unbecoming of a Government servant. In this context learned counsel for the State has also placed reliance on the order of this court dated 18.3.1998 passed in CWJC No. 689/97 as contained in Annexure -A as well as on the Circular dated 28.10.2003 as contained in Annexure -B to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 5.

(3.) HAVING given anxious consideration to the aforementioned submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the writ application of the petitioner must fail on a simple ground that it is not in dispute that day on which the petitioner attained the age of superannuation i.e. 31st July, 2001 his status was that of a convicted person for a serious crime.