IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15767 of 2005 KRISHNADEO PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE GUNJESHWARI SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SRI RAM COLONY, BHAGWANPUR CHATTI REWA ROAD, P.S. SADAR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTGRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF-CUSPECIAL SECRETARY- CUM-ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, PATNA. 8. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, MUZAFFARPUR CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR. 9. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, MUZAFFARPUR DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 10. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDIJG DIVISION, GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. 11. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDING DIVISION, MOTIHARI, 12. THE UNDER SECRETARY, FINANCE (PERSONAL PAY FIXATION CELL), PANT BHAWAN, PATNA. 13. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (ACCOUNTS AND ENTITLEMENT), BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 3 24/09/2010 Though the Court has reservation with the - 2 - multiplicity of the relief which has been prayed for in the present writ application but taking the fact into consideration that the petitioner has superannuated on 31st January, 2001 and he is not only a senior citizen but a retired employee, the Court is not willing to reject some of the other prayer though it is composite in nature in the present writ application. First issue is deduction of certain amount from the earned leave of the petitioner as well as additional claim of Rs.64,126/- by an order dated 13.09.2004 is one of the challenges in the writ application. The Court does not want to record any opinion on these submissions or the merit of the submissions with regard to the challenge of the State decision in view of the fact that the Court wants to relegate the petitioner to the competent authority to give an opportunity to the petitioner to reconcile the so called advance given to him and the utilisation thereof. He has brought certain evidence on record but the Court feels that they can be best verified and appreciated by the concerned respondents from the records than any guess estimate which this Court may have to make on the accounting part. Petitioner does not - 3 - deny that an advance was given but its utilisation is the issue and for reconciliation of other amount the petitioner has explanation and he seriously challenges the stand taken by the respondents that it is a case of non- reconciliation of advance. In this regard petitioner has freedom to appear before the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Muzaffarpur (respondent no. 9) and the said respondent is directed to extend due co-operation to the petitioner in verification of this fact in relation to the advance for which certain deductions have come to be made in terms of his letter contained in annexure-1. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for fixation of his salary on the promoted post of Assistant Engineer is concerned, in this regard a direction is issued that if petitioner files a fresh application lodging his claim before the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna he shall get the service record and claim of the petitioner verified and issue a proper direction so that the pensionery benefits can come to be finalized if the entitlement of the petitioner is otherwise held to be correct. - 4 - The other claim about non-payment of salary for certain months, this Court has no opinion to offer on this issue since some of these claims are as old as of 32 years now. Therefore, it is a matter of verification of record. If it is available the Court can only give freedom to the petitioner to pursue his matter before the concerned authority who will be obliged to verify the said claim and decide the issue one way or the other. The Court expects a decision at all the levels by all the respondents as directed by this Court as aforesaid within a period of six months form the date of filing the claim by the petitioner. This writ application is disposed of at this stage without making any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)