BISWANATH DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of order dtd. 22/2/2014 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara whereby claim for pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner has been declined and a decision was taken by the District Establishment Committee to recover salary and other payments to the petitioner during his entire service tenure.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher; his appointment was purely temporary and it was only for a period of six months. Upon his appointment he was posted at Middle School, Dakshin Bahal, Jamtara. He claims that he was sent for training and on completion of the training he was appointed on 19/6/1976 in the said school. He has superannuated from service on 31/12/2011. When his post-retiral benefits were not paid to him he approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.1716 of 2013. The writ petition stood disposed of by an order dtd. 27/9/2013 directing the District Superintendent of Education to pass a reasoned order on the claim of the petitioner. When the writ Court's order was not complied, the petitioner was compelled to prefer Contempt Case (Civil) No.298 of 2014. In the proceeding of the said contempt case it was disclosed that by the impugned order date 22/2/2014 claim for payment of post-retiral benefits and arrears of salary for the period between 1/10/2007 to 4/6/2011 have been declined. This is the order, which has been impugned by the petitioner in the present proceeding.

(3.) Contending that more than three years after his superannuation from service without initiating a proceeding under Jharkhand Pension Rules,2000, pension and other post-retiral benefits accrued to the petitioner cannot be withheld, Sri Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation of continuing in service fraudulently stands falsified from the respondents' own documents. As against the above, reiterating the stand taken in the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent- State, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, the learned State counsel submits that the letter of appointment dtd. 31/5/1976 by which the petitioner was appointed would disclose that he was appointed under Scheduled Caste category though he belongs to the general category and on a false representation continued in service till his superannuation from service on 31/12/2011 and, therefore, the petitioner who has played fraud is not entitled for pension and other post-retiral benefits.