SRINARAIN SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make final payment of Pension, Gratuity, Leave Salary, Provident Fund and Group Insurance alongwith interest. By an amendment application the petitioner has also challenged the validity of the impugned order contained in Anuexure 17 and has prayed for a suitable direction to the Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis of the average last salary which had been paid to him on the basis of the orders contained in Annexures-21 and 21-A. The subsequent order dated 27-10-1988 fixing the pension and the gratuity on the reduced salary contained in Annexures-23 and 23-A has also been challenged with a prayer thatfa positive direction be issued to fix the Pension and Gratuity of the petitioner on the basis of the average pay actually drawn by him in the last ten months prior to his retirement, and further that he be allowed the benefit of pension without further medical examination.

(2.) In February, 1954 the petitioner joined the service of the State Government as an assistant in the Political and Appointment Department. He superannuated as Section Officer on 1-10-1987 after completing 33 years of satisfactory service from the department, now known as the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. He filed applications for final payment of the amount of G. P. Fund and for sanction of Pension and Gratuity, Leave Salary and the balance amount of the group Insurance Reminders were sent but even after six months of his retirement no payment was made although the petitioner was in dire necessity of money, who had to perform the marriage of his daughter. Having received no reply the petitioner filed this writ application in April, 1988.

(3.) The petitioner was promoted as U. D. Assistant in March, 1975. After 21 years of his service he got this first promotion. In January, 1980 he was promoted to Selection Grade Assistant which was treated as Junior Selection Grade Post, In December, 1981 the Government framed a policy to give two time bound promotions to those who were stagnating (Annexure-18). The petitioner was granted the second time bound promotion with effect from 25-1-1982 (Annexure-19). After the second tims bound promotion the petitioner withdrew the salary which was allowed to him and the payment received between January, 1982 to September, 1987 indicates that he had drawn the salary starting from 1335/- per month in the year 1982 to Rs. 1510/- per month in September, 1987. This is contained in Annexures-21 and 21-A. By an interim order dated 27-5-1988 this Court directed to make the payment of Pension and Gratuity by 30th June, 1988. By another order dated 22-9-1988 this Court positively directed to make the payment of Pension and Gratuity by 4-10-1988, but the payments were not made. On the contrary, by an order dated 28-9-1988 contained in Annexure-17 the department reduced the salary of the petitioner without stating any reason and without any notice to him, even though the matter was pending before this Court and interim directions had been given for payment of Pension and Gratuity. The salary which had been drawn by the petitioner in pursuance of Annexures-21 and 21-A starting from Rs. 1335/- per month to Rs. 1310/- per month was substantially reduced pending the hearing of this writ application in this Court Even though the matter was subjudice before this Court and the petitioner had communicated a copy of the order of this Court dated 12-10-1988, but the Accountant General issued Authority Slips for Pension and Gratuity on the basis of the reduced salary. The same is contained in Annexure-23 and 23-A. This action necessitated the petitioner to file an application for amendment with a prayer for the additional relief indicated above. By its order dated 12-10-1988 this Court had taken serious view of the matter that even though the interim orders had been passed and the matter was sub- judiced before this Court the salary of the petitioner was reduced without any notice to him and, therefore, this Court had to issue notice to show cause as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against respondent No. 4 who had issued the said order contained in Annexure-17.