IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15408 of 2004 Mod Narayan Jha SON OF LATE SURESHWAR JHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUNDERPUR, P.S. SADAR DISTRICT DARBHANGA. Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE CHIEF OF OPERATION, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATNA. 3. THE ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATNA. 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE DEPOT SUPERINTENDENT, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORTION, DARBHANGA. ---------------------------------- 8 09/12/2011 Petitioner was working as a Booking Clerk under the respondent Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). Due to absence of the conductors, petitioner was given the said responsibility to work as a stop gap arrangement in February, 2004. It is while performing such a responsibility on 1.4.2004 that the Superintendent of the Corporation carried out a search operation of the Bus in question who found some irregularities in matters of collection of fare and its accounting. Matter was viewed by the respondent authorities to be a serious abrasion on - 2 - the part of the petitioner which led to his compulsory retirement since he had already reached the age of 50 years. The order of compulsory retirement issued by the Divisional Manager, Muzaffarpur is annexure-1 dated 21.05.2004. Petitioner decided to approach the Administrator of the respondent Corporation against such a decision terming it to be not only irrational but also bad in law because no case for compulsory retirement was made out against the petitioner within the ambit of the law laid down in Rule 74(b) of the Bihar Service Code. The Administrator taking into consideration the factual matrix, the background under which annexure-1 came to be passed as well as the interpretation and the scope of Rule 74(b) of the Bihar Service Code, came to a considered opinion that no case for compulsory retirement was made out as a measure of punishment for the so called commission and omission committed by the petitioner. If the concerned authority was of the view that the petitioner had committed serious abrasion, then there ought to have been a departmental proceeding and suitable punishment ought to have been imposed thereafter but resorting to compulsory retirement as a - 3 - short cut method as well as to give a go bye to a departmental proceeding was un-warranted. Annexure-7 dated 19.02.2008 is the order of the Administrator which set aside the order of compulsory retirement and also allowed the respondent authorities to proceed against him departmentally. Since this order has been passed during the pendency of the writ application, I.A. No. 4596 of 2011 was filed annexing the said order as well. I.A. No. 4596 of 2011 is hereby allowed. In the writ application a prayer has now been made that the petitioner after reinstatement is entitled to his salary for the period he was under compulsory retirement which is said to be 21.05.2004 based on annexure-1 till his reinstatement by virtue of the order contained in annexure-7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the order of compulsory retirement was held to be bad by the Administrator, who happens to be the final authority in the chain of hierarchy, then order contained in annexure-7 will relate back to the order contained in annexure-1. Petitioner, therefore, would be entitled to his salary for that period based on the decision taken by the Administrator. - 4 - Learned counsel representing the Corporation, however, submits that though the order of compulsory retirement has been held to be bad, the Administrator has also given a freedom to the disciplinary authority to hold an enquiry. So the issue is not closed as yet. If the material and evidence comes, various kinds of punishment can be awarded upon the petitioner, may be withholding of salary. Claim of the petitioner for payment of salary, at this stage, therefore, is un-called for. He should await the outcome of the enquiry. The stand of the respondents does not seem to be in consonance with the principle of salary on this issue. When the order of compulsory retirement is held to be bad which was prejudicial to the interest of the citizen, then it correlates to the date when the order was passed against him. Order of compulsory retirement has been held to be bad by the Administrator and if it is so and if the order does not speak so, then the order correlates to the date when the order of compulsory retirement was passed. If that is the position, then obviously the petitioner is entitled for the salary and other allowances for the period he was away from the duty in view of the - 5 - illegal decision taken by the concerned authority and the advantage will surely accrue to the petitioner. To this extent, the Court is in agreement with the statement based on the principles well decided in various issues coming before the Court of such kind. A direction, therefore, is given upon the respondent authorities of the Corporation that they have to take steps to make payment of salary and other allowances to the petitioner for the period 22.05.2004 till the date of his reinstatement in service. So far as the departmental proceeding is concerned, it is best left to the wisdom of the respondent authorities because, any way, nothing seems to have been done after 19.02.2008 when the Administrator himself has given a lee-way to the disciplinary authority on this count. This writ application is allowed to the limited extent indicated above with a direction that the order will be complied with within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)