IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4251 of 2005 YOGENDRA PRASAD son of late Sheopujan Prasad, resident of village Shankhe Khas, Police Station Uchkagaon, District Gopalganj Versus 1. THE CHAIRMAN,B.S.E.B. , Electricity Bhawan, Patna. 2. The General Manager cum-Chief Engineer, Tirhut Area, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Electrical Chapra Electric Supply Circle, Chapra, Saran 4. The Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Gopalganj ----------- 4 11.02.2010 Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Verma, J.C. to Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel representing the Electricity Board. The petitioner retired from the post of Typist from the Electricity Board with effect from 31.1.2004. Upon non payment of his post retiral dues he filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents for payment of the post retiral dues which remains pending. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Electricity Board and its functionaries and in paragraph 6 the details of dues which has been paid to the petitioner relating to G.P.F., Group Savings Scheme, leave encashment has been mentioned but it is also - 2 - mentioned that the petitioner is being paid provisional pension at the rate of 90 %. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it is stated that since there was a dispute as regarding determination of date of birth hence the payment of gratuity and 10% of pension has been withheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the copy of the service book placed at Annexure-A of the counter affidavit submits that a bare perusal thereof shows that the date of birth of the petitioner is 6.1.1944 and he retired on the said basis with effect from 31st of January, 2004. It is thus submitted that it is an act of arbitrariness on the part of the respondent to have withheld the 10% amount of pension and the full amount of gratuity despite the said clear position and inspite of the fact that there is no proceeding either initiated or pending against the petitioner. It is thus submitted that the authorities of the Board have withheld the amount without any authority merely on the basis a fitness certificate in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 26 years. It is - 3 - contended that the respondent authorities have completely ignored the entry in the service book certifying the date of birth of the petitioner as 6.1.1944. A medical fitness certificate cannot be a basis for any confusion in so far as the date of birth of the employee is concerned and the entry made in the service book is an authentic certification of the date of birth. It is an act of arbitrariness on the part of the respondents to have denied the justified claims of the petitioner on the basis of suspicion and confusion arising from the age mentioned in the fitness certificates. The act of withholding the 10% pension + gratuity of petitioner is without sanction of law. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to forthwith release the 10% pension and the gratuity amount of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner also raises an issue of denial of increment admissible to the petitioner. As the said relief is not claimed in the writ petition, this Court would not - 4 - permit the petitioner to enlarge his relief. However, the petitioner if so advised may pursue his claim before the departmental authority who may be consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. This writ petition is disposed of with the direction aforesaid. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )