GANESH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who retired from the services of the State as Headmaster, at the time of fixation of his retirat benefits, certain amount was ordered to be adjusted/recovered on the ground that increments were wrongly released in his favour though he had not passed the requisite Hindi, noting and drafting examination (examination for short).

(2.) THE sole question to be determined in this case is whether the State can deduct any amount from retiral benefits or re -fix pay from initial stage, after retirement, at the stage of determination of retiral benefits on the ground that the employee had not passed the requisite examination, while in service? The petitioner, who entered as an Assistant Teacher under the State, retired on 30.6.1992 from the post of Headmaster Middle School, Bagheji Barauli -2, Gopalganj. While in service, he was paid salary on proper fixation of pay after release of year to year increment.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the retiral benefits of pension/gratuity to be fixed in terms with Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.. It is so fixed, taking into consideration the pay of certain months and the last pay drawn. The power to curtail or withhold pension/gratuity is only stipulated under rules 43 and 139 of the Pension Rules, 1950 but no power delegated to curtail or lower down or withhold pension/gratuity for any other reason than the ground shown in the Rules. No provision has been made therein to curtail or withhold any amount from pension/gratuity or other retiral benefits on the ground of non -passing of requisite examination. Thereby, it is evident that the respondent -A.G., Bihar has no jurisdiction to lower down the pension/gratuity, nor can order/suggest to recover any amount from the retiral benefits on the ground of non -passing of requisite examination. This apart, it appears that the State Government vide its amended rule as notified on 20.7.1972 made provision to relax the rule for passing examination. Generally, the benefits of relaxation given to the persons, who crossed 50 years of age but could not pass examination 5/1/2on 013 certain Page 199 attempts. Such power being vested with the State Government, in the cases where persons were allowed benefits of increment, irrespective of passing the requisite examination, the authorities should have considered the case to grant post facto relaxation to regularise the matter instead of recovery in the amount from a pensioner. Raj Kumar Ram Versus State Of Bihar