DEVENDRA NATH TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the State respondents including the Accountant General, Bihar. This relates to the payments of the balance amount of pension to the petitioner, who retired from service on 30.9.1992 after taking into consideration the monetary benefit arising out of the first time bound promotion granted to the petitioner on 25.2.1997, albeit he is entitled to such promotion with effect from 1.4.1984 when the juniors were promoted i.e. after the retirement of the petitioner. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the second time bound promotion to which he is legally entitled to, has not been given to him, although the juniors to the petitioners have been promoted ignoring the claim of the petitioner. In support of his contention, Mr. A.B. Ojha, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon Annexure -2 to this writ application in order to show that M/s Dasrath Tiwary and Braj Kishore Pandey whose names find place at sl. nos. 24 and 25. in the seniority list whereas the petitioner stands at sl. no.22. Curiously the aforesaid two persons were promoted with effect from 1.4.1984. The case of the petitioner has, however, not been considered for grant of second time bound promotion as it appears from Annexure -2 to this writ application. In this case, no counter affidavit has been filed till date in spite of sufficient opportunity given to the State respondents. However, learned counsel for the State submits that due to pendency of criminal case against the petitioner, his case for grant of second time bound promotion was not considered. Admittedly, the said criminal case was dropped after having accepted the final form by the Special Judge, Patna, in Special Case No. 22 of 1989, which is apparent from the order, dated 31.8.1996, Annexure -5, appended to this writ application. In that view of the matter, there is no justification for the State respondents either to withhold part of the pension amount and/or to deprive the petitioner of his legal claim. From the order contained in Annexure -2, it is apparent that no reason has been assigned as to why the petitioner has not been granted second time bound promotion when the persons junior to him, as stated above, have already been promoted with effect from 1.4.1984. Admittedly, the other retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner except 10 per cent of pension and gratuity, which have been with -held only on the ground of pendency of the criminal proceeding. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, the State respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of first and second time bound promotion with effect from the date the juniors were promoted and pay all the legal dues arising therefrom including arrears of salary within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Since the petitioner retired on 30.9.1992, he is entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount, due from the date of retirement till the date of respective payments along with a cost assessed at Rs. 1,000/ -. Both the amounts of interest and cost must be paid along with the principal amount within the time aforesaid. The respondent State, however, will be at liberty to realise the amounts of interest and cost from the person found responsible in delaying the payments. This disposes of the instant writ application.