IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4051 of 2006 UMA NATH SHARMA SON OF LATE YADU NATH SHARMA (MANDAL ) OF VILLAGE FATHEPUR, P.S. NATH NAGAR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE TREASURY OFFICER, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER BHAGALPUR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR. 4. THE DIRECOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, BUDDHA MARG, PATNA. 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EDUCATION BHAGALPUR. 6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION, MUNGER. 7. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BHAGALPUR. 8. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, LAKHISARAI. 9. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 03. 20.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The basic grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 17.01.2006 issued by the Accountant General as contained in Annexure- 10 with regard to the deduction of 25 percent of the pension, in view of the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Patna as per letter no. 1898 dated 28th of June 2005. The aforesaid letter of the Director, Secondary Education is not under challenge. However, on perusal of the said order, as contained in Annexure- 10 series at page 46, it would appear that by the aforesaid order after a 2 department enquiry the petitioner was imposed with the aforesaid punishment of deduction of 25 percent of the pension. In this view of the matter letter issued by the Accountant General as contained in annexure- 10 does not suffer from any illegality and the same has been issued pursuant to the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education in a departmental enquiry for the charge proved against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not been paid his gratuity, however, there is no such prayer nor any averments made in the writ petition. More so, petitioner earlier filed a writ petition with respect to the payment of retiral dues especially with regard to leave encashment. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 09.10.2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 12708 of 2001 as contained in Annexure- 5. From perusal of the counter affidavit as also the copy of the bank cheque as contained in Annexure- C the amount of leave encashment has been paid and received by the petitioner who made endorsement on the back of the said cheque. Even though there is no specific averment with regard to the non-payment of gratuity, however, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not been paid his gratuity. 3 In absence of any such averment, this court is not in a position to issue any direction with regard to the payment of gratuity. Counsel for the State submits that prayer of the petitioner challenging the claim for payment of 25 percent of the pension which has been deducted is not admissible to him for the reason that the aforesaid deduction of 25 percent of the pension from his pension has been passed as a measure of punishment after holding a departmental enquiry. The charges against the petitioner have been found proved and the said order of punishment still subsisted. Considering the submission of the parties I do not find any merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)