Subhash Chandra Bhardwaj vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State and

Accountant General.

The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

"That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or an appropriate writ/order or direction commanding the respondents to pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner encluding. (i) Full amount of pension. (ii) Full Amount of Gratuity. (iii) Full amount of leave Encashment of 300 days. (iv) Arrears of salary. (v) Arrear of pension after granting due promotion to the petitioner. (vi) Revise the pension as per recommendation of VIth and VIIth pay commission revision. By counting the total length of service of the petitioner spent under work charge establishment till his date of retirement from service as per notification of Finance Department i.e. letter no. 1392 dated 31.3.2004 (Annexure-5) and as per the order dated 15.05.2013 passed by the Division Bench of Hon''ble Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 416 of 2013 and order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the Hon''ble Division Bench vide Civil Review No. 210/2014 (Annexure 6,7,8 and 9) to the application And be pleased to grant the payment with an interest of 12% per annum on delayed payment as after retirement in the year 2012 nothing has been paid to the petitioner in an arbitrary and illegal manner and/or be further pleased to pass such other order or orders which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

At the very outset, learned counsel for the State

submitted that the petitioner has not come the Court with clean hands

and has suppressed vital facts. He submitted that earlier the petitioner

had thrice approached the Court and lastly he has filed C.W.J.C. No.

7513 of 2016 for basically the same relief and the same has been

admitted on 22.08.2016 and the present case has been filed without

disclosing about the said case filed by him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

said case was filed seeking continuity in service whereas, the present

case has been filed seeking pensionary benefits moreso, in light of

the liberty given by the Court in another case i.e. L.P.A. No. 416 of

2013 ( The State of Bihar vs. Sheela Devi and Others ).

Having considered the matter, the Court upholds the

objection of learned State counsel. The relief prayed for by the

petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7513 of 2016 reads as under:

"1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to (i) count the service of the petitioner from the date of his appointment i.e. from 24.09.1988 in the work charge establishment, till the date of his superannuation i.e. 27.04.2012 for the purpose of calculating the minimum qualifying service of the petitioner (i.e. from 24.09.1988 to 27.042012) as per the circular of finance Department bearing its letter No. 1393 dated 31.03.2004 (Annexure-5) which is clarified by the Division Bench of Hon''ble Patna High Court vide order dated 15.05.2013, passed in L.P.A. No. 416/2013 (The State of Bihar-Vs-Sheela Devi (Annexure-6 series) which has not been done in case of the petitioner in a wrong, arbitrary and illegal manner and (ii) pay the pay-arrear to the petitioner accordingly as per the rule laid down in this, respect and (iii) pay the arrear of pension after granting due promotions to him and accordingly (iv) revise the pension of the petitioner as per the Recommendation of VIth pay Commission Revision

and/or (v) be further pleased to pass such other order or orders which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

From the above, it is obvious that the reliefs prayed

for in the present writ petition is covered by the relief sought in the

other case. What is more surprising is that the petitioner, under an

obligation to state all facts, has in fact not even whispered about

C.W.J.C. No. 7513 of 2016 in the present writ application which

clearly is an attempt to hoodwink the Court and in fact, appears to be

a desperate attempt to get over the fact that the other case has been

admitted and likely to take some time before it is finally heard.

The Court cannot accept such smart play by the

petitioner. The Court was, thus, of the view that cost be imposed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition and

tenders apology.

In view thereof, the writ petition stands dismissed as

withdrawn.