SAROJ KUMAR SARKHEL Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2011 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Jamtara, respondent No. 4, whereunder an amount of Rs. 1,51,969/ - has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner as excess payment and his claim for payment of retiral dues has been rejected. He has also made a prayer for payment of gratuity amount sanctioned on 31.1.2010 vide Annexure 4 after deduction of a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac, which was earlier paid in advance at the time of his retirement. He has also made a prayer for fixation and payment of pension along with its arrears, leave encashment amount, dearness allowance and difference of salary from 1.1.2006 till his retirement from the post of Head Clerk cum Accountant, Nagar Panchayat, Jamtara.

(3.) THE respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit taking a stand that as per the letter of the Government of Bihar dated 9.2.1989, the amount of gratuity payable to a retired employee of Municipality would be calculated in a particular manner with upper limit fixed at Rs. 50,000/ -. As such, the petitioner is only entitled to Rs. 50,000/ - as gratuity. It has been stated that the order at Annexure -4 for payment of enhanced amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 2,76,343/ - was illegally issued by the then Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Jamtara. The petitioner has also obtained a cheque of Rs. 1.00 lac dated 29.1.2010 against his gratuity two days prior to his retirement without approval of the Board of Commissioner. For this act the Executive Officer, Jamtara was also asked to submit explanation. It is the categorical statement of the respondents that the petitioner has never opted for pension within 90 days of publication of Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1987, particularly Rule 4(i) thereof. They questioned the document at Annexure 6, which the petitioner claimed to be option form exercised by him to avail of pension. It is their contention that only those who have submitted their options in terms of Rule, would be treated to have come into the pension scheme and others would be treated to have continued under the existing contributory provident fund scheme. The petitioner has already withdrawn the entire provident fund amount totaling Rs. 90,649/ - from the concerned office at Jamatra. According to the respondents, there is no provision for leave encashment for a Nagar Panchayat employee but the petitioner had illegally withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,16,100/ - fifteen months prior to his retirement, which is recoverable from him. As per notification No. 1591 dated 16.5.2011 of the Urban Development Department, an employee would be entitled to financial benefit of 6th Pay Revision w.e.f. 1.4.2010 while the petitioner had already retired w.e.f. 31.1.2010.