Md. Izharul Haque vs State of Bihar and Others

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for A.G. is present. Petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 6193 in which he had claimed post retirement benefits on the basis of his service for the period November, 1951 to December, 1972 and he did not want credit for the period 1.1.1973 to 31.1.92 during which he was continuously absent from service. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 17.2.2003 Reported in Md. Izharul Haque Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, (Annexure-15) with direction that petitioner may submit a representation before the concerned respondent, the Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Rohtas, who shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law and shall also consider the question of delay on the part of petitioner in ventilating his grievance. By order dated 9.7.05 the concerned Chief Medical Officer has rejected petitioner''s prayer for interest over pension and gratuity allowed to the petitioner.

On behalf of petitioner two grievances were raised. Firstly, it was submitted that petitioner''s pension should have been fixed not on the actual pay received by him during last ten months but on the basis of salary that he would have received if he was paid salary till 31.1.92. This submission is fit to be rejected in view of earlier order of this court contained in annexure-15 and also in view of judgment in the case of Kameshwar Jha vs. State of Bihar 2000(1) PLJR 201 which is based upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.J. Jain vs. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC. 691. The other grievance of the petitioner is that there is a policy decision of the Government to pay 5% interest over dues of pension and gratuity in case there is unusual delay in sanctioning such dues. That prayer has been rightly rejected by the concerned authority because of the peculiar facts showing that petitioner had remained absent from service for long 19 years and had not prayed for any interest in his earlier writ petition as appears from annexure-15. Hence this court finds no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.