MADHUSUDAN MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved on account of non -payment of his remaining 10% of pension and 10% of the amount of gratuity, though he superannuated from service of the State long back on 28.2.1995.

(2.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State from which it appears that no proceeding in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules has been initiated and/or pending against the petitioner. It seems that an explanation was called for from the petitioner vide letter dated 14th September, 1998, contained in Annexure -5 purporting to be in terms of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. It is not the case of the Respondents that any order relating to pension was passed, which the State Government later considered to revise, and accordingly the said explanation was issued under sub -clause (c) of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Annexure -5 also does not indicate that the show cause was issued in terms of Rule 139(c) of the said Rules.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the allegation in the charge against the petitioner in the explanation called for vide annexure -5 with respect to excess payment for which necessary adjustment was already made from the salary of the person concerned, namely, Ramanuj Singh, and as such withholding of payment of the remaining amount of pension and gratuity by the Respondents is mala fide. In this regard, he referred to the statement made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition in which it is stated that the Accountant General as far back as in the year 1996 had adjusted the Said amount. This fact though has been answered in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, but has not been denied.