JAGARNATH MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to order dated 6.8.2001, Mr. J.R.K. Rao. Special Secretary. Department of Industries, Government of Bihar appeared in person and filed his show cause.

(2.) THE instant proceeding has been initiated for the alleged non -compliance of the order dated 4.2.2000 passed in CWJC No. 1016/99(R). By the said order the respondent was directed to release all the retrial dues to the petitioner within a specified time. It appears that the petitioner joined the services of Bihar State Khadi Gram Udyog Board in the year 1961. After serving about 36 years, he retired on 31.3.1997. During the entire period of service the petitioner was paid salary out of the fund allotted by the Government of Bihar. When retrial dues was not paid to the petitioner, he filed the aforementioned writ application imp leading the State of Bihar and also officers of the khadi Gram Udyog as party the respondent. However, no counter affidavit was filed by the State of Bihar although copy of the writ application was served on the counsel for the State of Bihar, The respondent -Board appeared in the writ petition and filed a counter affidavit taking a stand that because of paucity of fund and financial crisis the retrial dues could not be paid to the petitioner. This Court relying upon the decision of a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 3250/98(R), disposed of the writ application with a direction to the State Government and also the concerned respondent of the Board to make payment of the retrial dues of the petitioner.

(3.) AS noticed above, during the entire period of 36 years of service of the petitioner, he was paid his salary and wages by the State Government and no objection whatsoever at any point of time was raised either by the Board or by the State Government about availability of fund. When the State Government allowed salary to the petitioner for the entire period of 36 years then it cannot be allowed to say, after retirement of the petitioner, that the retrial dues could not be paid unless it is proved that the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Government. The Special Secretary, although recently joined the said post, has stated in para 9 of the show cause that the petitioner was appointed without prior approval of the State Government. This statement is true to his information derived from the records but no such paper ar any documentary evidence has been annexed with the show cause in support of his statement.