IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA --- CWJC No.378 of 2008 --- PARASURAM PANDEY SON OF LATE SRI NARAYAN PANDEY RESIDENT OF GRAMIN BANK COLONY, RAUJA CANAL ROAD, FAZALGANJ, SASARAM, ROHTAS, BIHAR ------ PETITIONER Versus 1.UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR, BIHAR 2.THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR, BIHAR 3.DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, SONEPUR, BIHAR 4.SR. PERSONNEL OFFICER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SONEPUR, BIHAR 5.SR. OPERATING MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SONEPUR, BIHAR -----RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. K.K. Chobey, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Parashuram Singh, Advocate --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 24th September, 2008 In this writ petition, the controversy is confined to deduction of Rs.7,532/- from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that such deduction is unauthorized and is in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. By order dated 2nd May, 2008, the respondents were asked to produce the original documents in support of the case that Rs.7,532/- were justifiably deducted. In response thereto, an affidavit has been filed by one Surya Narayan, DPO, East Central Railway, Shaharsa on 3rd July, 2008, annexing therewith four documents. 2 3. We are constrained to observe that the court directed the counsel for the railways to produce original documents for the court’s perusal but, unfortunately, that has not been done and we are, in the circumstances, left with consideration of the supplementary affidavit, which is dated 3rd July, 2008, for want of original documents. The documents do not lead to any firm conclusion as to how the amount mentioned in these documents have been held to be outstanding against the petitioner. The documents, Annexures 1 to 4, are communication from one authority to the other. The basis whereof has not been produced despite specific direction that the original documents be placed on record. More over, there is merit in the contention of the petitioner that if at all these deductions were to be made, it could have only been done after giving notice to the petitioner. 4. Merely because Railways Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, provides for recovery and adjustment of the railways dues from pensionary benefits, it does not mean that any amount can be adjusted as the authorities may like without noticing the concerned railway official. 5. We fail to fathom any reason in the unjustifiable stand of the railways in contesting the claim of small amount of Rs.7,532/- and spending much more on avoidable litigation. 6. We, accordingly, dispose of this writ petition by the 3 following order: i) The respondents shall pay a sum of Rs.7,532 to the petitioner for the wrongful deduction of the said amount from the gratuity within one month from today. ii) In the event of default, the respondents may expose themselves to willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this court. 7. We order accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/