GUPTESHWAR SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE FOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing the orders dated 30.9.2004 and 31.8.2005, annexure 7 & 8 to the writ petition, by which the Petitioner has been directed to pay interest on the amount of alleged go down shortage @ 18% per annum. The Petitioner has further sought a writ of mandamus for payment of Rs. 93,419/-payable towards the earned leave and gratuity after adjusting a sum of Rs. 55,856.97 which was payable by the Petitioner to the Respondents and he has further prayed that other retrial benefits including Group Insurance, Pension, etc also be released.

(2.) The Petitioner has been working as an Assistant in the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation and during his service tenure, certain shortages in the go down were found and a sum of Rs. 1,49,894.97 was directed to be recovered from the salary of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was compulsorily retired in the month of March, 2003 and till then, a sum of Rs. 90,328/-was deducted from his salary and still there was outstanding of Rs. 59,566.97 was against the Petitioner. Thereafter, a further sum of Rs. 3710/-was recovered in the month of April, 2003 and thus, till April, 2003, a total sum of Rs. 90,328/-plus 3710/-was recovered from the Petitioner and he was further liable to pay a sum of Rs. 55,856.97 only which he has prayed to be adjusted against the amount of his earned leave and gratuity.

(3.) The Respondents have also filed the counter affidavit in which they have admitted that the amount of earned leave and the gratuity is payable to the Petitioner and the amount of G.I.S. and provident fund can only be released after meeting proper formalities by the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the demand for the interest was raised by annexure 7 & 8 to the writ petition from the Petitioner and a reply thereof was given to the Respondents and thereafter the recovery including the interest has been made. He further pointed out that the Rule which has been quoted in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit does not provide that the Respondents are entitled to get the inter on the amount recovered from his employees apart from the amount which has been defalcated. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents refuted the contention and contended that at different times the orders have been passed for recovery of the amount in different district and the amount which has been raised is related to the interest and a proper show cause notice has been given and thereafter, the amount is being recovered from the Petitioner. He further pointed out that the Respondents are entitled to asses the interest by way of loss sustained by the Respondents for the laches on the part of the Petitioner. He also relied upon a amended Rules which is annexed in the counter affidavit as annexure-A.