IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3413 of 2007 RAM SAKAL SINGH, son of Late Ram Briksh, resident of village-Eghra, P.S.-Nokha, District-Rohtas (Sasaram) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner and Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. Engineer-in-Chief(North), Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 7. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 8. Superintending Engineer, Ganga Pump Canal Circle, Bhagalpur. 9. Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division, Motihari. 10. Executive Engineer, Water Ways and Investigation Division, Bettiah. 11. Executive Engineer, Ganga Pump Canal Division, Shivnarayanpur, District-Bhagalpur. 12. Executive Engineer, Ganga Pump Canal Division, Suryagarha, Munger. 13. District Provident Fund Officer, Munger. 14. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ----------- 10 09.12.2009 Heard Mr. Satish Chandra Jha learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Ashutosh Singh assisting counsel to G.P.8 and Mr. Harsh Vardhan Prasad learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General. The petitioner had filed the writ petition for payment of his retiral benefits having retired from the post of Junior Engineer on 31.1.2003. Admitted position is that during 2 the pendency of the proceeding almost the entire retiral benefits as admissible to the petitioner has been paid to him save and except his grievance relatable to payment of salary for the period 1.8.1990 to 24.6.1996 and refixation of his retiral benefits after affording him the benefit of first and second Assured Career Progression which remains pending. According to the petitioner he was entitled to the said promotion as back as in the year 1999 on completion of 24 years of service but the same has been denied to him. By order dated 14.10.2009 this Court had directed the respondent State to file response as to the pending grievance of the petitioner relating to the salary for the period 1.8.1990 to 24.6.1996 and with regard to his claim towards first and second A.C.P. and refixation of his retiral benefits on the basis thereof. A supplementary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State on 19.11.2009 after service of the same upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and in which an order bearing memo No. 1777 dated 26.4.2005 under the signature of Under Secretary, Water Resources Department has been 3 enclosed as Annexure-KK-1. By the said order the service rendered by the petitioner for the period 1.8.1990 to 24.6.1996 has been treated as extraordinary leave in terms of the provisions contained in Rules 180 and 236 of the Bihar Service Code for the reason assigned that the petitioner had remained absent on his own volition during the said period. The counter affidavit however is silent in so far as second claim of the petitioner regarding first and second A.C.P. and recalculation of his retiral benefit is concerned. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that this order was passed much after the retirement of the petitioner and without hearing him and as such it is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. He further submits that the consequence of the said order is resulting in forfeiture of the salary of the petitioner for the period in question and that he was entitled for personal hearing before the order was passed so that the petitioner could substantiate his claim for salary for the period which was being treated as unauthorized absence. It is submitted that the decision of 4 the authorities in treating the said period as unauthorized absence without hearing him is not correct and cannot be sustained. It is indiputed that the order dated 26.4.2005 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to defend his case. It is also an admitted position that the consequences of the order is resulting in forfeiture of salary of the petitioner. The order dated 26.4.2005 thus has been issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter, the order dated 26.4.2005 (Annexure KK-I) is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2, the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, who would reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order after providing due opportunity to the petitioner of presenting his case on the issue of payment of salary for the period 1.8.1990 to 24.6.1996 with supportive documents. Needless to add that the respondent Secretary while considering the matter relating to the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary for the period 1.8.1990 to 24.6.1996 would also consider 5 the claim of the petitioner for grant of first and second A.C.P. with effect from 1999 and for refixation of his retiral benefits pursuant thereto. The exercise is to be completed within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case the petitioner is able to make out a case for payment of salary for the period in question then necessary orders would be passed for payment thereof within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order. It is further directed that if the claim with regard to his first and second A.C.P. is found to be genuine then necessary orders for refixation of pension & gratuity be passed and the service book of petitioner be forwarded to the Accountant General for necessary authorization. The Accountant General would issue necessary orders of authorization expeditiously and without further delay having regard to the fact that this is a case of an employee who has retired as back as in the year, 2003 and is still fighting for his claim. No sooner is the authorization issued by the Accountant General, the respondent No.2 would 6 issue order of payment revised pension together with its arrears and arrears of gratuity arising by reason of such refixation in favour of the petitioner. It is also clarified that in case the claim of the petitioner with regard to salary and/or grant of Ist and 2nd A.C.P. does not find favour with the respondent Secretary, the same should be rejected by a reasoned and speaking order. It is submitted at the bar that the provident fund of the petitioner has since been sanctioned for payment. In that view of the matter the respondent No.12, Executive Engineer, Ganga Pump Canal Division, Suryagarha, Munger is directed to ensure the payment of G.P.F. to the petitioner with statutory interest calculated from the date became due until the payment is made within three months of receipt/production of copy of this order. This writ petition is disposed of with the directions aforesaid. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )