Satish Chandra Khan vs State of Bihar and Others

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.—The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 21.12.1971 and retired from service on 31.01.2000. In 1974, his school was taken over and nationalized. It appears that subsequently State Government took a decision that all the Teachers of the taken over school would get salary at Government rates with effect from 1971 itself but the decision was that this would not be paid to them in cash or in hand rather it would be lump sum deposited in their Provident Fund (PF) account. Petitioner asserts that accordingly for the period 21.12.1971 to 31.03.1973, this incremental amount, which was due to him, was not deposited in his PF account. He is entitled to the payment thereof. His second grievance is with regard to nonpayment of bonus for the years, 1998 and 1999. His third grievance is for payment of salary for the months of May, June, July, 1998 and his last grievance is with regard to payment of salary for the period February and March, 1999. He had earlier come to this Court when he was directed to file a representation which was to be disposed of by the authorities. Having filed the representation, when there was no disposal, he filed a contempt application before this Court. During pendency of the contempt application, authorities disposed of his representation and that is why the present writ petition has been filed. There is counter-affidavit filed by the State in the matter. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated in regard to the first grievance that there was no deferment. When we compare with the statement, as made in the impugned order, it is just otherwise. In the impugned order, what is stated is that entire amount had been deposited and, as such, no amount can be paid to the petitioner. Both the stands are not only irreconcilable but avoiding answering the issue. It must be noted that these amounts were decided to be paid to the like of the petitioner long after that period had gone by. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can even be suggested by the respondent-State that petitioner was paid the said incremental amount originally itself because this decision was taken in 1976. Once this decision was taken then it was obligatory on part of the State to calculate petitioner''s liability in this regard and to that extent deposit the money in petitioner''s PF account. In view of the impugned order and the counter-affidavit, it is apparent that authorities failed to exercise their duty.

Thus, I have no option but to hold that for the period 21.12.1971 to 31.03.1973, the differential amount of salary on account of increment therein must be now paid to the petitioner in accordance with law.

With regard to claim of bonus, the claim stands admitted in the impugned order. In the counter-affidavit also, it is not disputed.

In that view of the matter, I have no option but to direct that if for the years 1998 and 1999, petitioner has not been paid bonus as asserted by the petitioner and accepted in the impugned order, petitioner must be paid the same forthwith. As this is a statutory liability of the State and ought to have been discharged way back in 1998 itself, I direct that it be paid to the petitioner with interest at 4% per annum till its payment.

Now coming to the next two prayers with regard to payment of salary for three months'' period in 1998 and two months'' period in 1999. In my view, there is serious controversy in fact in regard to the same. Petitioner has annexed a purported attendance register and an order of the Area Education Officer. To the contrary, in the counter-affidavit, another attendance register is given which shows him to be absent in those periods. It is well settled that such disputed questions of fact cannot be amicably or easily resolved in these proceedings and, as such, I am unable to decide those issues. Petitioner is relegated to whatever forum he may be advised to settle dues on this account. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.