KAILASH NATH SINGH, SON OF LATE MITHILESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS SECRETARY/PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has interalia prayed for quashing the letter dated 08.05.2012 issued by the respondent no.3, whereby the order of recovery has been passed from the retiral benefits of the petitioner and further prayer has been made by the petitioner for direction to the respondents to release the entire retiral benefits i.e. G.P.F., Leave Encashment, L.I.C., Gratuity, and also for fixation of Pension. The petitioner has also prayed for direction upon the respondents for the payment of retiral dues with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and the petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order passed by Executive Engineer dated 31.07.2013 whereby the recovery from the provisional pension, provisional gratuity, leave encashment etc. has been made.

(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon as Class-IV posts. While continuing as such vide Annexure-1 dated 04.05.2012, the petitioner was asked to file his reply to the allegation of interpolation in the service book with threat of lodging of FIR. The petitioner submitted his explanation as per Annexure-2 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service with retrospective effect from 31.01.2009 vide order dated 08.05.2012 and a direction for recovery of the excess amount from his retiral benefits which is impugned in this writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation for payment of post retiral benefits. The respondent no.3 sought for clarification from the Superintending Engineer as to part of guidance for adopting procedure for recovery of overpayment made to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 also sought for certain clarification as to the State formulation of the service book. After obtaining the necessary guidelines, the respondent no.2 communicated the same to the Superintending Engineer. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 vide Annexure-8 passed the order for recovery from the post retiral benefits which is also impugned in the writ application. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by the respondents for recovery from the post retiral benefits, the petitioner, left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has submitted with vehemence that the recovery which has been done on the allegation that the petitioner being 4th grade employee being custodian of the service book on the basis of Annexure-A to the supplementary counter-affidavit, the same has been done being oblivious of the relevant rules i.e. Rules 297 and 298 of the Jharkhand Service Code. Therefore, the alleged action on the part of the respondents is in infraction of the relevant provisions of the Jharkhand Service Code. In order to buttress the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 101 and 102 of the Bihar Financial Rules which inter alia prescribes that the service book should be taken up every year for verification of service and record of necessary certificate in the manner as laid down in Rule 101. Therefore, the respondents could not have apportioned blame on the petitioner for their own laches and negligence. Moreover, the petitioner has worked and discharged his duties, so under no circumstances, the recovery could have been affected by the respondents. In support of the contention raised, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision reported in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Narasimha Sundram, 1994 Supp3 SCC 705, and also the decision reported in the case of Kaushalya & Others Vs. State of Bihar,2000 2 BLJ 688 and also reported in the case of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others, 2015 4 SCC 334.