IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15530 of 2004 DHIRENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA S/O LATE YOGENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA R/O OF AM GOLA PARAO POKHAR LANE NO.1 PO-RAMNA DISTT-MUZAFFARPUR----------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR POLICE BHAWAN NIRMAN NIGAM, BNP CAMP PATNA 14 3. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR POLICE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PATNA BEHIND BNP,5 ANISABAD,PATNA 4. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPPARTMENT, VISHVASARIYA BHAWAN,PATNA 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, BIHAR POLICE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,-PATNA---- RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr.Tuhin Shankar,Advocate For the State: Mr. Shambhu Naht (A.C. to GPX) (Res.Nos. 1 & 2) For the Respondent Mr. P.K.Sinha, Advocate Nos. 2 and 4) -------- 4 4.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is a retired employee of Bihar Road Construction Department. He was on deputation with Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation or Nigam. The present dispute related to the period when he was on deputation of the Nigam. The grievance of the petitioner is that a sum of Rs. 22,515.80 is sought to be recovered from his retiral dues which according to the respondents was advance taken by the petitioner while on deputation with the Nigam. The advances are secured advance, travelling allowance and some temporary advances which add up to the figure of Rs. 22, 515.80. Submission of learned counsel of the petitioner is that all these recoveries sought to be made now after many a years of retirement of the petitioner without any opportunity of hearing to him or notice in this regard. Even otherwise since no proceeding - 2 - or show cause in this regard was issued while he was in service the respondent be restrained from effecting the recoveries. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Police Building Construction Nigam wherein they have categorically stated that notice to the petitioner came to be issued after an audit objection was raised by the Accountant General because these advances have not been accounted for or reconciled. It was in this background the petitioner had been given notice. They have also indicated that communication was made earlier to the petitioner on this issue but he chose to maintain silence which has not helped the situation any bit. Some of the settled principles with regard to recovery after retirement may not be available to the petitioner for simple reason that these recoveries are not being made on account of refixation of his pay or other dues. These recoveries are under the head of advance taken by the petitioner which is a matter of accounting. The petitioner therefore cannot avail the benefit of ratio laid down by the Full Bench in this regard recently. The respondents have categorically stated that no doubt it is an old matter but since on an audit objection has been raised, reconciliation of account will have to be made. If the petitioner cooperates with the respondents and furnishes the documents which are available with him for reconciliation of the account and Nigam authorities will also make available the records with them. - 3 - With the categorical stand taken in the counter affidavit this writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the respondents Corporation that they shall cooperate with the petitioner in reconciliating the advances. After reconciliation if there is still dues outstanding then the petitioner will have to take steps for the payment or if it is reconciled the deduction be refunded to the petitioner. The Court expects that a final settlement of accounts as indicated above with due cooperation of the petitioner and the Corporation will be made within a period of three months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)