BHOLA JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to pay the amount of Gratuity and Provident Fund dues for the period from June 1978 to March 1980. It has been stated that the petitioner retired from the service of the respondents on 30.6.96. After his retirement, the petitioner was entitled to get his pensionary benefits and other service terminal benefits, but the same were not paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had moved tills Court in C.W.J.C No. 1600/2001. By order dated 23.4.2001, the said writ petition was disposed of remitting the matter to the Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna to determine the claims of the petitioner relating to pension, Gratuity, Provident Fund and to pay the admitted dues. It has been stated that the petitioner, thereafter, was paid the amounts of Provident Fund in part, leave encashment and other retiral benefits. The pension has also been fixed and is being paid, but the amounts of Gratuity and Provident Fund for the said period have not been paid to the petitioner till date. The Managing Director, Bihar State Hosing Board, Pntna, who was directed to determine the petitioner's claim of Gratuity, has not determined the same and by order dated 18.1.03 the petitioner's claim of Gratuity has been denied observing that the scheme of Gratuity was not applicable to the employees of the Board before 19.4.1999 and as such the petitioner Is not entitled to get the amount of Gratuity.

(2.) MR . P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Submitted that the petitioner's claim of Gratuity has been rejected on frivolous ground without any legal basis. The petitioner's pension and other retiral benefits have been paid by the Board after the direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition. Pension includes the Gratuity. When the pension has been paid, there is no justification for denying the amount of Gratuity. He basis has been shown for denial of the said claim of the petitioner.

(3.) THOUGH the said statements have been made in the impugned letter and also in the counter affidavit, no legal provision or anything has been brought before this Court to show as to how a person, who has been paid pension, can be deprived of the benefit of Gratuity.