IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 8938 of 2008 Raj Bansh Dubey, son of late Chandra Deo Dubey, resident of Village - Jagaria, P S - Chainpur, Dist - Kaimur (Bhabua) - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2 The Director, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The District Magistrate, Kaimur, Bhabua 4 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhabhua 5 The Block Development Officer, Adhaura 6 The Director, Provident Fund, Finance Department, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 7 The District Provident Fund Officer, Bhabhua 8 The Treasury Officer, Secretariat Treasury, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna 9 The Accountant General, Bihar, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna - Respondents ----------- 3 05.03.2009 The petitioner joined the Bihar Agriculture Service as Agriculture Inspector on 20.06.1964. During his career, he was posted to different places and promoted. In 1985, it appears he was posted as Block Agriculture Officer at Adhaura in Bhabhua Subdivision. He was ordered to be transferred. The Block Development Officer, Adhaura relieved him but on 27th July 1985, the Subdivisional Officer, Bhabhua cancelled the relieving order and directed the petitioner to stay and work as Block Agriculture Officer, Adhaura till substitute was found. This is evident from Memo No 13 dated 27th July, 1985 of the Subdivisional Officer, Bhabhua. Petitioner states that thereafter he remained as such till he superannuated on 31.07.2000. Upto 1986, he was paid his salary as Block Agriculture Officer, Adhaura. Thereafter, his salary was not paid nor are his retiral dues being paid. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that in 1985, he was relieved from Adhaura to join Darbhanga. He did not join Darbhanga and, thereafter till his retirement, he joined nowhere. He was, thus, not entitled to any salary 2 nor to any retiral dues. From the facts aforesaid, one thing is clear that at no point of time, any departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner either for not joining his designated post or for absconding from any post. In my view, emoluments of an employee in service cannot be withheld except pursuant to orders in a departmental proceeding. Same is the case so far as retiral dues are concerned. No proceeding at any point of time ever having been initiated, withholding of salary dues and retiral dues is, thus, per se unauthorized in law. In this connection, I may also refer to a communication under Memo No 957 dated 14.10.1998 by the Subdivisional Officer, Bhabhua to the Block Development Officer, Adhaura in which it was clearly stated that the petitioner was entitled to draw his salary as Block Agriculture Officer, Adhaura from the time he was first tried to be relieved upto date. Copy of this letter has been marked to the petitioner showing him to be Block Agriculture Officer at Adhaura. This makes the stand of the State irreconcilable. Further on record, there is Memo No 1208 dated 13.11.2007 of the Deputy Collector (Establishment), Kaimur to the Block Development Officer, Adhaura, seven years after petitioner’s superannuation, wherein the Block Development Officer, Adhaura is being directed to prepare and ensure payment of salary for the period prior to petitioner’s retirement from Adhaura. In the counter affidavit, these two documents have not been denied nor their authenticity nor their correctness have been challenged. Thus, it is apparent that for some reason, petitioner continued to remain as Block 3 Agriculture Officer at Adhaura for a very long period unnoticed by the administration. The situation of petitioner was precarious because the Subdivisional Officer was not relieving him and all officers were recognizing his service at Adhaura from where he ultimately retires. These facts as well entitle petitioner to his arrears of salary and all retiral dues. In such a situation, I have no option but to direct respondent No 2 Director, Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna to ensure that all arrears of salary and retiral dues are duly quantified and paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before him by the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)