STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. BAIKUNTH NATH DWIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Appellant -State of Jharkhand against the order dated 31.01.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S)No.46 of 2006, which is time barred by 163 days for which an application (I.A.No.2345 of 2008) for condonation of delay has been filed. In spite of this delay, we considered it just and appropriate to permit the Appellant -State of Jharkhand to address this Court on the merit of the appeal in order to obviate any injustice that might be caused to the Appellant -State of Jharkhand in the event of dismissal of the appeal merely on the ground of delay without considering the same on merit.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant, therefore, addressed the Court on the merit of the appeal and submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is fit to be quashed and set aside as the Respondent -Employee cannot be held entitled to be paid the entire retiral dues since the amount of Rs.1,08,850/ -is fit to be deducted as a consequence of the order of punishment imposed on him in a departmental proceeding. However, on perusal of the impugned order, we have noticed that the order of the learned Single Judge is only to the effect that the petitioner -Respondent herein is entitled to the payment of his entire retiral dues which includes the amount of gratuity, leave encashment and other pensionary benefits. The order does not indicate that the Petitioner -Respondent is required to be paid even those dues which are fit to be deducted and hence we do not appreciate the concern of the appellant to file this appeal and the contention that the entire dues are not payable to the respondents -writ petitioner even if some of the dues are legally fit to be deducted. It goes without saying that if an order of deduction is passed, the same shall be communicated to the Respondent, leaving it open to the Respondent to assail the same before the appropriate forum that may be available to him. In so far as this appeal at the instance of the State of Jharkhand is concerned, we find no ground to entertain the same in spite of the delay of 163 days merely on the ground that the entire retiral dues should not be paid. When the learned Single Judge has passed the order to make the payment of entire retiral dues to the Respondent, it is implied that the retiral dues include only the legal dues and if certain dues are fit to be deducted then the same obviously will have to be dealt with after granting opportunity of hearing to the Respondent in this regard.