The Bihar State Electricity Board and Others vs Ramjee Prasad Singh

This appeal is barred by limitation.

Along with this appeal an application being I.A. No. 1415/2002 has been filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condo nation of delay in filing the appeal. After having heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and having perused the averments made in the limitation Petitioner, we are of the view that sufficient grounds have been made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly the delay in filing the appeal is condoled and the limitation petition is allowed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The Appellant-Bihar State Electricity Board (in short ''the Board'') is aggrieved by the order dated 7.1.2002 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 12744/2001 whereby the Board was directed to clear the additional pension of the writ Petitioner together with leave encashment as also arrears of pension with statutory interest in the revised pay scale. The learned single Judge has also directed for commutation of pension of the Petitioner.

The brief fact of the case is that the writ Petitioner superannuated from the Bihar State Electricity Board on 31.1.2001. The leave encashment and commutation of pension could not be granted to the writ Petitioner because certain allegations were pending enquiry before the authorities. The admitted position is that the Board has adopted Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 and according to which the State Govt. reserves the right to withhold a pension or any part of it, if any departmental proceedings is pending or if not pending, instituted within four years from the date of an event for which the proceeding has to be initiated or judicial proceedings is pending or continuing after superannuation.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant drew our attention to Annexure-4 series; from perusal of which it appears that certain allegations were pending enquiry but no departmental proceedings in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was either pending nor any such proceeding had been initiated after superannuation. Thus we fully agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge that up till now no departmental proceedings has been initiated against the writ Petitioner u/s 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. In that view of the matter, the Board cannot withhold the leave encashment and commutation of pension on the ground of pendency of certain allegations against the Respondent-writ Petitioner. Accordingly we uphold the order of the learned single Judge and direct for payment of leave encashment and commutation of pension of the writ Petitioner.

The other controversy involved in case is that as to whether the writ Petitioner has to be paid the retrial dues as well as the leave encashment commutation of pension in the revised pay scale or revised pay scale. In this regard learned Counsel for the Board submitted the erstwhile State of Bihar has been located into two States, namely, Bihar and Jharkhand. Uptill now no division of lets and liabilities have been made in (sic)ns of Section 62 of the Bihar Re-organization Act. Even the cadre division hot been given final shape. The Board as taken a decision that in terms of the (sic)cy decision of the Board pension and (sic)cy pension of those employees of the (sic)ard who have superannuated prior to (sic)4.2001 will be paid in the revised scale pay and about others, decision will be can after division of the cadre and distraction of assets and liabilities of the Board. The decision of the Board, in our view, cannot be faulted in view of the fact that up known there is no division of assets and (sic)lities of the Board. Accordingly payment of other retrial dues in the revised (sic)e of pay shall be made by the Department after the final distribution of the as and liabilities is completed by the retrial Govt. in terms of the provisions as plaited in the Bihar Re-organization Act.

With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of.