IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13054 of 2005 DR.GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03/ 11.05.2010 Mr. Uma Kant Shukla for the petitioner, Mr. Shankar Kumar, assisting counsel to A.A.G. 5 for the State, Mr. Neeraj Kumar, junior counsel to Mr. Dhruv Mukherjee for the State of Jharkhand and Mr. J.P. Karn for the Accountant General are present. The petitioner, an officer of the Animal Husbandry Department, was dismissed from service with effect from 21.02.1996 while holding the post of District Animal Husbandry Officer for his involvement in the Animal Husbandry Scam. The writ petition was filed for payment of the post retiral benefits. This Court upon consideration of the matter was pleased to pass the following order on 30.07.2007: “The petitioner was an Officer of the Animal Husbandry Department, who was dismissed from service on 21.02.1996 while holding the post of District Animal Husbandry Officer. He was also proceeded in the Animal Husbandry Scam cases in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner on his own showing while he is residing in the State of Jharkhand he wants to maintain this writ application on the ground that the liability under the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, for payment of his retiral benefit is on the successor State of Bihar. He also maintains that this writ application is maintainable in Patna High Court in view of the earlier order dated 11.01.2005 passed by this Court as 2 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner, however, has not stated as to when, and in which criminal case he has been convicted and sentenced. If the petitioner has already been convicted and sentenced, there is no question of paying retiral benefit in terms of Bihar Pension Rules. Petitioner may be at best entitled for payment of amounting of G.P.F. and C.S.S. The petitioner is accordingly directed to file supplementary affidavit stating the correct position with regard to criminal case. It will be obligatory for him to state as to when the charges were framed against him in the criminal case and when was the order of conviction recorded. If on perusal of the supplementary affidavit any suppression of fact is revealed/found on the part of the petitioner, this court may impose heavy cost. Put up this case after four weeks.” The Court also while recording the aforesaid order, directed the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit stating clearly the correct position with regard to the criminal case and upon perusal of the supplementary affidavit if any suppression of fact revealed on the part of the petitioner, it may led to compensation of heavy cost. Almost two years after passing of the order dated 30.07.2007, a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner acknowledging that the petitioner was convicted in the case of RC 19(A)/96 and RC 66(A)/96 and that the petitioner has preferred criminal appeal in which he has been admitted on bail. Again no date of the conviction of the order 3 has been set out in the supplementary affidavit which further results in suppression of material fact on this point. Learned counsel for the State, with reference to the order passed in the criminal case placed at Annexure-A of the counter affidavit filed today passed in case no. RC 19(A)/96, submits that the judgment was passed on 12.04.2006. Having regard to the circumstances that the petitioner stands convicted, he is not entitled to any retiral benefits in terms of the Bihar Pension Rules as had already been held by this Court in its order dated 30.07.2007. Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner is entitled for payment of the G.P.F. amount and the Group Savings Scheme. Learned counsel for the State does not oppose the said prayer of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the respondent no. 2 is directed to take steps for payment of the G.P.F. amount and the Group Savings Scheme of the petitioner, which should be paid to the petitioner preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order together with admissible interest thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, sought to challenge the validity of the order dated 15.02.2009 placed at Annexure-5 of the interlocutory application, whereby the pension and gratuity of the petitioner have been withheld 4 consequent upon his conviction in the criminal case. As this Court had already held that the petitioner would not be entitled to any pensionary benefits under the Bihar Pension Rules, no fault can be found in the orders passed. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction aforesaid. S.Sb/- ( Jyoti Saran, J.)