IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6247 of 2005 MAHESH THAKUR, son of late Rajendra Thakur, resident of village- Jethuli, P.O. Jethuli, P.S. Fatwa, District- Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Patna. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna City, Patna. 4. The Circle Officer, Fatwa, Patna. 5. The officer-in-charge, Fatwa, Patna. 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Didarganj, Patna. ----------- 13 23.02.2010 Heard Ms. Alka Verma learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, A.C. to G.P.7 for the State. Pursuant to the order dated 4.12.2009 an order has been passed by the District Magistrate albeit without hearing the petitioner. The District Magistrate has discussed the dues as claimed by this petitioner relatable to his father late Rajendra Thakur who expired while in service working against the post of Choukidar on 1.1.2005. The post of Choukidar was brought into the pensionable establishment with effect from 1.1.1990 and that is how the Choukidar became entitled to payment of pension and other pensionary entitlements under the provisions of Bihar Pension Rules. The claim of the petitioner relatable to arrears of salary, group insurance, G.P.F., pension and gratuity has been - 2 - discussed by the District Magistrate, Patna in the order bearing memo No. 239 dated 1.2.2010 passed in purported compliance of the order dated 4.12.2009. In relation to the claim of arrears of salary the District Magistrate has held that the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs. 42,584/- by way of arrears of salary admissible to his late father vide letter No. 710 dated 7.11.2009. In relation to group insurance it is stated that a sum of Rs. 2609/- found to be admissible to the late father of the petitioner has been paid. In so far as G.P.F. is concerned it is stated that since no amount was deducted from the salary of the father of the petitioner and hence no amount towards this claim is found admissible. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary for the period 2.1.1994 to 31.12.1997 is concerned it is held that no document relatable to the service rendered by the father of the petitioner is available and hence the said payment has not been done rather the District Magistrate has found that the father of the petitioner was absent from April 1994 to April 1995 and - 3 - thereafter he was traceless until 31.12.1997 and thus he was not entitled to any salary for this period. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that she has documents demonstrating that the deceased employee was on duty and once this is proved then the father of the petitioner becomes entitled for payment of salary. The petitioner has brought some of the commands issued in this regard by way of enclosures to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed today. In so far as pension/ family pension is concerned it was held that as the mother of the petitioner expired in the year 2000 itself and the present petitioner was found to be aged 29 years on the date of death of his father hence no family pension was admissible to any of the dependents. In so far as gratuity is concerned the orders have been issued to the Circle Officer, Fatuha for examining the claim of the petitioner and for making payment thereof. One element which has not been taken note of is unutilized leave salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner - 4 - has submitted that the father of the petitioner was also entitled to unutilized leave salary. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the following claims still remains pending :- (a) dues of salary for the period i.e. 1994 to 31.12.1997 and 1.1.1999 to 31.12.2004 (b) gratuity and (c) Leave encashment. Although a sum of Rs. 42,584/- has been paid to the petitioner by way of arrears of salary but the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to further amount towards salary relatable to the period given hereinabove. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the District Magistrate, Patna together with supportive documents demonstrating that the father of the petitioner was on duty for the period 2.1.1994 to 31.12.1997 and 1.1.1999 to 31.12.2004 and if the petitioner is able to - 5 - substantiate his claim with supportive evidences that his father was on duty during the aforesaid period and the salary payments have not been paid then necessary steps would be taken for payment thereof. In so far as gratuity and leave encashment is concerned, I find that the District Magistrate has already issued order to the Circle Officer, Fatuha for examining the matter and taking steps for the payment of gratuity. However, so far as leave encashment is concerned no order has been passed thereon. In that view of the matter, the Collector while examining the claim of the petitioner relating to salary would also consider the aforesaid grievances and if the claims of the petitioner towards gratuity and leave encashment is found admissible then the same would also be paid. As it is an old case hence it is expected that the District Magistrate, Patna would consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation by a - 6 - speaking order and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative. The writ petition is disposed of. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )