BAIDYANATH PRASAD SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent to pay the post retirement benefits to the petitioner, after taking into consideration the monetary benefits, arising out of the time bound promotion, which the petitioner is legally entitled to during the period while he was in service.

(2.) SHORTLY , stated the facts of the case is, which are not in dispute, that he was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 17.12.63. It is alleged that the petitioner was transferred to the C.D. Block Garkha. The ORDER :of transfer was subsequently recalled due to death of his son vide ORDER :dated 6.2.63, copy of which is made Annexure -1 to this writ application. It is alleged that the then Head Clerk made proposal for initiating a criminal case against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a representation before the District Magistrate on 29.10.63 stating, interalia, that he is being falsely implicated at the instance of the Head Clerk. The copy of the said representation is made Annexure -2 to this writ application. However, three separate criminal cases were filed against the petitioner in the year 1963 and he was placed under suspension by ORDER :dated 1.9.64. Subsequently on 14.12.68 the petitioner was dismissed from service. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a suit being Title Suit No. 196/68 challenging the ORDER :of dismissal. Since the prayer for injunction was refused, the petitioner filed Civil Revision application being Civil Revision No. 1277/69 wherein it was observed that the petitioner will be fully compensated if he succeeds in the suit as it appears from the ORDER :as contained in Annexure -3 to this writ application. The trial court by ORDER :dated 14.3.70 has held that the ORDER :of discharge passed against the petitioner is illegal and inoperative but unfortunately the suit was dismissed on the ground of non -service of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner thereafter, filed a fresh suit, after service of notice in terms of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Title suit no. 13/70 and the aforesaid Title suit was compromised and pursuant to the compromise decree the petitioner was paid" full wages for the period of suspension with effect from 1.9.64 to November, 1972. Since the criminal cases filed earlier remained pending the petitioner was ultimately acquitted in all the aforesaid three cases as it appears from the JUDGMENT : and ORDER :contained in Annexure -5 series to this writ application. Thereafter petitioner retired from service on 31st of May, 1992.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that even after service of more than 38 years not a single time bound promotion was given although the petitioner is legally entitled to two time bound such promotions. The further prayer of the petitioner is for grant of compensation for malicious prosecution of the petitioner continuously for twenty three years. As stated above the aforesaid facts are not in dispute.