IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7830 of 2006 Hemanand Pathak, Son of late Kunwar Pathak, presently residing at Mohalla South Dighi, P.S. Darbhanga Town, District Darbhanga. ------------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Vishweshwariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Vishweshwawriya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, Road Construction Department, Darbhanga. 4. Executive Engineer, Road Division, Jainagar. 5. Accountant General, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. -------- Respondents ----------- 3 14.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this application, the petitioner has made prayer to the following effect:- “1(I) For a direction to the respondents to fix the payment of pension of the petitioner and start making the same to him taking into account the fact that the petitioner stands retired from active service of the respondents with effect from 31.10.2003 on attaining age of superannuation. (II) For a further direction to the respondents to make payments of Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Group Insurance amount, Provident Fund and other retiral dues which have not been paid to the petitioner even after a lapse of about three years of his retirement, simply on the ground that a departmental proceeding which was initiated against him way back in January 2002 has not been concluded even after retirement of the petitioner. (III) The petitioner further prays that so long the final 2 pension, gratuity and other retiral dues are not finally calculated and fixed, the respondents may be directed to make payment of at least provisional Pension, provisional Gratuity and provisional G.P.F. amount.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had superannuated with effect from 31.10.2003 but in a space of more than six and half years, the petitioner’s payment of provisional pension and/or final pension has not yet been made. He, however, has very fairly drawn attention of this Court towards the order of punishment dated 8.1.2007 wherein the petitioner was subjected to an order of punishment by way of recovery of Rs. 5,70,626/- from his payable amount of retirement benefit including pension/gratuity. He has further submitted that even after the adjustment of the aforesaid amount, the petitioner would be entitled to certain payment on the head of pension, gratuity, leave encashment and provident fund. Counsel for the State has drawn attention to paragraph nos. 10 & 11 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:- “10. That the deponent further submits that instead of repeated requests when the petitioner did not turn up and submitted his show cause reply pursuant to the above stated letters, the competent authority, has been, under the aforesaid circumstances, passed the punishment order dated 8/1/2007 inflicting punishment upon the petitioner. It is stated that it has been ordered that Rs. 5,70,626/- shall be recovered from the pensionary benefits viz. pension/gratuity of the petitioner as also so far suspension period w.e.f. 24/1/2002 to 31/10/2003 3 the petitioner shall not be granted any thing in excess of subsistence allowance. 11. That the deponent further submits that the Respondent 3 i.e. the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department Road Circle, Darbhanga has issued letter no. 60 dated 8/1/2007 regarding payment of Group Insurance and General Provident Fund and further letter no. 61 dated 8/1/2007 addressed to the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna regarding sanction of provisional pension. Further by office order memo no. 70 dated 9/1/2007, an amount to the tune of Rs. 54671/- (Rupees fifty four thousand six hundred seventy one) only has been sanctioned towards group insurance scheme.” It would thus appear that certain payments were authorized immediately after order of punishment. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that they are not the total admissible payment to the petitioner. This Court would find that there was justifiable reason for non-payment of the full and final retirement benefit at least till the conclusion of the departmental proceeding. However, now when the departmental proceeding has been concluded and order of punishment by way of recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,70,626/- has also passed vide letter no. 12 dated 8.1.2007 passed by the Deputy Secretary of the Road Construction Department, the authorities including the respondents of this writ application were/are under obligation to settle the payment of admissible retirement benefit, inasmuch as, no part of his pension has been withheld save and except recovery of the amount from the payable 4 of the retirement benefit. This Court would accordingly direct the concerned authorities to ensure that whatever payment is admissible and payable to the petitioner after giving effect to the order dated 8.1.2007 by way of recovery of Rs. 5,70,626/- must be made to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The claim of the petitioner placed by the counsel as with regard to subsistence allowance as indicated in the order impugned, does not form part of retirement benefit and therefore, this writ application confined to the retiral benefit only must be left to the aforementioned direction only. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)