AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to
implead the Senior Treasury Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua as
respondent no. 9 and the District Programme Officer
(Establishment), Kaimur at Bhabua as respondent no. 10. Let
necessary correction be made in the cause title of the writ petition by
learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day.
In terms of order dated 13.10.2017, the present District
Programme Officer, Kaimur is present. However, a statement is
made that he has joined on 30th October, 2017 and thus, was not the
concerned officer, who had made a wrong statement in the affidavit
filed by him in this proceeding before the Court for which personal
appearance had been directed.
A show cause has been filed on his behalf in which
apology has been tendered and it has been explained that under some
misconception, it was thought that the amount was paid though at
that time, only recommendation had been made for payment.
Be that as it may, since the present incumbent is not
the person who has filed the affidavit, in which the wrong statement
with regard to payment having been made to the petitioner has been
made, the Court does not find any fault on the part of the present
incumbent namely, Mr. Surya Narain, the present District
Programme Officer (Establishment), Kaimur. Accordingly, he is
exonerated.
However, as the person who has filed the affidavit in
which admittedly wrong statement has been made on affidavit, the
Court deems it appropriate to refer the matter to the Principal
Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar (respondent
no. 2) to ensure that appropriate action is taken against Mr. Deo Bind
Kumar Singh, who the Court is informed is now posted as District
Programme Officer, Samastipur, for having made a patently wrong
statement on oath before the Court. Learned counsel for the State
shall inform the respondent no. 2 with regard to the present order.
Coming to the merits of the matter, the reason why
retiral benefits of the petitioner were not being paid to him was that
under the head of building construction, the amount having been
drawn was Rs. 43,441/- in excess of the work which has been found
to be completed of the building and thus, as per the State
respondents, the said amount is due from the petitioner. It has further
been contended that in December, 2016 itself, the authorities had
given an option to the petitioner either to repay the amount or in the
alternative agree to adjustment from his post retiral benefits. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that in his rejoinder, he has
agreed for adjustment of the amount, subject to verification of the
facts.
A letter has been produced before the Court today
bearing No. 1470 dated 02.11.2017 of the present District
Programme Officer (Establishment), Kaimur to the Senior Treasury
Officer, Kaimur, in which it has been requested to pay the retiral
dues of the petitioner after withholding an amount of Rs. 59,441/-,
which is said to be on account of the principal Rs. 43,441/- and
interest of Rs. 16,000/-.
The Court finds that such stand of the respondent
authorities is not correct, for the reason that on the day the petitioner
superannuated, all post retiral benefits were lying with the State
authorities and thus on that very date, an amount much more that
what was outstanding was still lying with the State authorities. Thus,
there cannot be any question of the amount carrying any interest
against the petitioner and at best, it can only be presumed, that an
amount of Rs. 43,441/- is outstanding against the petitioner, subject
to adjustment or the petitioner being able to explain that the said
amount has also been spent either on construction or for the purchase
of materials for construction.
Thus, the Court holds that nothing beyond Rs.
43,441/- can be withheld against the petitioner and the said amount
shall not carry any interest for the reason, as stated earlier, the entire
post retiral benefits/dues payable to the petitioner were lying with the
State and thus, it would to be deemed that on the same day, only the
amount which was outstanding, could have been adjusted, in
accordance with law and after giving an opportunity to explain to the
petitioner and after completing the legal formalities. Thus, the officer
present before the Court shall send a fresh letter to the Senior
Treasury Officer, Kaimur to withhold only an amount of Rs. 43,441/-
and pay the rest amount.
Let the same be done within one week from today.
Thereafter, the Senior Treasury Officer, Kaimur is directed to ensure
that all admissible retiral dues of the petitioner are paid after
withholding an amount of Rs. 43,441/-. The petitioner shall be at
liberty to approach the competent authority in the matter of satisfying
the authorities with regard to the amount withheld. Subject to the
result of the same, the amount of Rs. 43,441/-, which is withheld
shall either be paid to the petitioner or any amount thereof and rest
shall be deemed to be adjusted on account of any unexplained
amount, which is held outstanding against the petitioner, after such
exercise. In the said exercise, the petitioner shall be given due and
adequate opportunity of hearing.
The respondent no. 9 shall ensure that the admitted
dues of the petitioner, after withholding an amount of Rs. 43,441/- is
paid to him within two weeks from the date of receipt of
communication from the District Programme Officer, Kaimur at
Bhabua, subject to the petitioner complying with all the required
formalities. The petitioner shall also serve a copy of this order on
respondent no. 9 within one week from today.
The writ petition stands disposed off in the
aforementioned terms.
Personal appearance of the officer stands dispensed
with.