IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 5906 of 2006 SATYA NARAYAN MANDAL, SON OF LATE CHABBILAL MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DHESLA LAXMIPUR, P.S.- AMBABAD, DISTRICT-KATIHAR, RETIRED PANCHAYAT SEVAK OF BLOCK BARSOI, DISTRICT-KATIHAR ………………… PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ACCOUNTATN GENERAL, BIHAR, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, KATIHAR 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BARSOI UNDER THE DISTRICT OF KATIHAR ……………… RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Kuamr Jha, Adv. For the State: Mr. Bijoy Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-IX For the Accountant General: Mr. LPK Rajgriha, Standing Counsel ----------- 05. 03.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Sevak on 12.07.1964 and after working for several years, retired on 30.11.2002. Petitioner’s case is that during his entire service career, he was not allowed any promotion either in post or in pay-scale. On the other hand, increments for which he was entitled were not included in his pay-scale. Time-bond-promotion was also not allowed to him. Even 303 days earned leave, though included in his Service Book, were not calculated for disbursing leave encashment. 2 While in service, petitioner had been implicated in a criminal case, merely on suspicion and also taken into custody. He remained in custody from 09.04.1987 to 04.08.1988. Since the petitioner was arrested and remained in custody, he was put under suspension and remained in custody from 20.11.1986 to 03.08.1992. A Departmental Proceeding had been initiated for this reason, but finally the petitioner was exonerated from all charges. So far criminal case is concerned, it ended in acquittal of the petitioner, but he was not paid his salary for the period of suspension despite the fact that no order for withholding the salary was passed by the authorities under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. Petitioner’s specific case is that he remained deprived of several financial benefits, simply because he had no access to his Service Book. Only after his retirement he could find out that without any rhyme and reason, even his increments were withheld. No enhancement of salary was given and for the period of suspension without there being any order, salary was withheld. Counter Affidavit and Supplementary 3 Counter Affidavit have been filed by the State. In the first Counter Affidavit, there is no specific reply to the statement made by the petitioner in the Writ Application. In the Supplementary Counter Affidavit, it has been stated that increments had been given to the petitioner from the year 1971 to August, 1975, when he passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. Fourth Pay Revision Commission came into effect on 01.04.1981 and the petitioner’s salary was revised. He received increment with effect from 01.01.1986 on the revised salary. On each occasion, when the pay revision was made the benefit of increment was allowed to the petitioner. Calculation chart has been annexed. There is an admission in the Counter Affidavit that two increments have not allowed to the petitioner for administrative reason, without disclosing the administrative reason. Counsel for the petitioner submits that for administrative reasons, increments could not have been withheld, unless punishment regarding withholding of increments has been awarded in a Departmental Proceeding. Since two increments could not be withheld for administrative reason, as such Respondents are directed to give benefit of two 4 withheld increments to the petitioner. So far unpaid salary of the suspension period is concerned it has been admitted in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit that salary for the period of suspension could not be paid to the petitioner, simply, because no Order was passed in this regard. I fail to understand that why an Order for making payment of salary was not passed by the Respondents for the period of suspension since the petitioner was exonerated in the Departmental Proceeding and also acquitted in the criminal case, there was no reason for withholding of payment of salary for the period of suspension. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to make payment of entire arrears of salary for the period of suspension, which admittedly has not been paid to the petitioner as no order could be passed in this regard. Regarding the period of 303 days of earned leave, it has been stated that it can not be adjusted / deducted from the earned leave of the petitioner and that is the reason that leave encashment has not been paid to the petitioner after his retirement. Considering the admission in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit the Respondents 5 are directed to pass necessary orders after making proper verification of petitioner’s Service Book in respect of following: - (i) Salary for the period of suspension; (ii) Increments; (iii) Time-bond-promotion; and (iv) Adjustment of unauthorized leave against the earned leave in the leave account of the petitioner. Petitioner is also directed for filing a representation before the Collector, Katihar, giving details of his claim along with this Order, within four weeks from today. Respondents, thereafter, will pass necessary orders within 12 weeks from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioner and will send a requisition to the Accountant General with the order passed, for re-fixation of petitioner’s pension and pensionary benefits. The Accountant General, Bihar will issue pension payment order within 8 weeks of the receipt of such requisition. In no case payment of legal dues to the petitioner be delayed beyond six months from the date of filing such representation by the 6 petitioner. So far the time-bond-promotion is concerned, it is stated in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit that it is being considered, as such necessary order be passed giving benefit of time- bond-promotion to the petitioner and allowing all consequential benefits to the petitioner on account of such promotion. The Accountant General is also directed to revise the pension, pensionary benefits of the petitioner and issue revised pension payment order in favour of the petitioner when the directions issued in this Writ Application is complied by the Respondents. With the aforesaid observations, this Writ Application is allowed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)