IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6403 of 2007 RAMESH PRASAD GUPTA Versus PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ----------- 05/ 14.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. On 10.03.2008 the case was heard by a Bench of this court and the following order was passed therein: “In spite of indulgence of four weeks granted to the Corporation to file counter affidavit, same has not been filed, in the circumstances, by way of last indulgence, put up after four weeks maintaining its position, but it is made clear that if no counter affidavit in compliance of this order is filed, then this Court will have no option but to dispose of this writ application on the basis of the averments available on record.” 3. In compliance of the said order, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation on 25.06.2008, in reply to which a rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 26.06.2008. Although a copy of the said rejoinder was served upon learned counsel for the respondents on 26.06.2008 but till now no reply to the said rejoinder has been filed by the Corporation and today learned counsel for the Corporation seeks adjournment for filing a reply. Considering the entire matter specially the delaying attitude of the petitioner since the inception of this writ case, prayer of learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation is rejected. 4. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner for payment of retiral benefits as he was appointed as Pump Attendant in the year 1965, whereafter he was promoted to the post of Charge man 2 in Patna Water Board under Patna Municipal Corporation and in the year 1975 and vide order dated 11.11.1994(Annexure-2)he was promoted to the post of Supervisor and finally he retired on 31.12.2003 while he was working on that post. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that only pension has been paid to him and that too only on the scale of Charge man and nothing else has been paid to him and hence, the amounts payable by the respondents to the petitioner are the balance fixation of pension of the petitioner on the scale of Supervisor and payment of balance amount to him along with provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment and balance of arrears of salary from the date he was promoted to the post of Supervisor as the salary paid to him throughout was for the post of Charge man. 6. On the other hand, it is claimed by the Corporation that the petitioner throughout worked on the post of Charge man and retired on 31.12.2003 from the post of Charge man itself. Learned counsel for the Corporation relies upon the order of the authority dated 11.11.1994(Annexure-2) which according to the Corporation does not show that the Departmental Promotional Committee has approved any such promotion nor there is any material to show that Public Service Commission has given its approval to any such promotion and the said order was only an order allowing the petitioner to work as Supervisor temporarily for which he would be entitled to get allowances only. 7. In the said circumstances, this is a disputed matter of facts and materials are available with the Corporation. Hence, the petitioner 3 is given liberty to file a representation before the Chief Executive Officer, Patna Water Board raising his aforesaid grievance along with a copy of this order and relevant materials. If such an application is filed within the aforesaid time, the said authority shall decide the same within eight weeks thereafter by a speaking order in accordance with law and if any amount is found payable to the petitioner, it should be paid immediately thereafter. 8. So far the other amounts regarding provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of scale of Supervisor are concerned, it has to be decided by the authorities concerned only after the matter mentioned above is decided by the authority concerned. In the said circumstances the petitioner is entitled to raise his said grievance also before the authority concerned in the aforementioned application. 9. Although learned counsel for the Corporation has claimed that petitioner vacated his quarter much belatedly but the petitioner has produced a document of the Corporation itself dated 30.06.2004 and 02.07.2004(Annexure-4) which shows that petitioner has vacated quarter given to him on 29.06.2004 i.e. within six months from the date of his retirement. Hence, it is held that on that score no amount can be deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid directions this writ petition is disposed of. harish/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)