IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10924 of 2002 SANT KUMAR SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Chandra shekhar, Sr.Advocate and Anil Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : M/s Anjani Kr. Sharan, S.C.XX & Lakmesh Marvind, J.C.to S.C.XX For the Acct.General: Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, Advocate. --------------- 04/ 14-08-2008 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General. Petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in 1964, on the basis of advertisement and interview. However, it is stated that he was dismissed from service in 1976 on the ground of some proved charges. He moved this Court and the writ application was allowed. Against that order, State went in appeal. After the judgment in appeal rendered by this Court in his favour, petitioner was reinstated in the year 1988 with all consequential benefits. But the respondents moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter. The appeal of the respondents in the Supreme Court was dismissed but with a modification in the judgment of this Court to the effect that the petitioner 2 would be entitled to only 40 percent of monetary benefits of the period. After his reinstatement as Sub-Inspector of Police, petitioner appeared in the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and passed it in 1992. Thereafter in 1996 he was promoted as Inspector and subsequently as Dy.S.P., from which post he retired on 28.2.2001. When the pension of the petitioner was being settled and finalized by the respondents, the respondents held that he had not passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination between 02.1.1974 to 05.1.1992, during which period he drew increments. Therefore, while finalizing the pension of the petitioner, the respondents deducted an amount of Rs.32,695/- from the gratuity of the petitioner on the ground of excess payment made to him without passing the examination. Respondents also with-held an amount of Rs.5,000/-(rupees five thousand) from his gratuity on the ground of non-vacation of Government quarter after retirement. Necessary orders were issued by the office of the Accountant General dated 28.5.2002 vide Annexure-9. Petitioner aggrieved by the same moved this Court. I.A.No.434 of 2003 has been filed for amending the prayer made in the writ application permitting him to challenge order dated 21.2.2002 3 (Annexure-10) passed by the I.G. of Police directing for deduction of an amount of Rs.32,695/- from the gratuity of the petitioner in the light of which Annexure-9 was issued by the Accountant General. This interlocutory application is allowed and the prayer of the petitioner is treated to be amended and the I.A. is treated as part of the main writ application. Contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that there was no occasion for the petitioner to appear in the examination of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination before 1988 as he was reinstated in service only then. Petitioner passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination in 1992 after his reinstatement in service and, therefore, there was no anomaly in granting increments to him by the respondents. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in any view of the matter petitioner was not required to pass Hind Noting and Drafting Examination as he was directly recruited as Sub-Inspector of Police and was a graduate at the time of his appointment. A counter affidavit has been filed in the case. The respondents reiterated the stand on the basis of which the said amount from the 4 gratuity of the petitioner was with-held. Respondents have submitted that upon payment of 40 percent of his financial benefits on his reinstatement, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the due increments were also included in the same, which could not have been included since the petitioner had not passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. The respondents have relied on a letter of the Home Police Department addressed to the Assistant I.G. (Welfare) dated 14.2.1997 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit). However, from bare reading of Annexure-C, it appears that it applies to only Constables who had not passed the Matriculation examination and were promoted as Havildar and Civil Jamadar and later on promoted in Class-III post. The relevant portion of this letter is reproduced herein below for ready reference : ”…………oSls vf’Af{Ar flikgh loaxZ ls izkszUufr goynkj@flfoy teknkj dks tks izosf’Adks mRrh.AZ ugha gSa vkSj izksUur ikdj r`rh; oxhZ; deZpkjh gSa rks mUgsa fgUnh i<us fy[Aus dh ;ksX;rk ijh{Ak ikl djuk vko’;d gksxk 1” a Thus, apparently, the condition laid down by this Annexure-C is not applicable to the petitioner as the petitioner was directly recruited as Sub-Inspector of Police and was 5 graduate. The respondents have not placed on record any other circular which may adversely effect the claim of the petitioner. In the circumstances, it is held that the respondents have illegally deducted the amount of Rs.32,695/- from the gratuity of the petitioner on account of his non-passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. Annexures-9 and 10 to that extent is, therefore, quashed. The respondents are directed to pay back this amount to the petitioner within a period of two months. So far as with-holding of amount of Rs.5,000/- for non-vacation of the Government quarter is concerned, the respondents have claimed that the petitioner had vacated the quarter after superannuation much late. If that is so, the respondents are given liberty to find out the actual date of vacation of the quarter by the petitioner and calculate rent payable by the petitioner on this account and adjust the said Rs.5,000/- and deduct any further amount from the said amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner if due amount of rent exceeds the with-held amount. After deducting the amount payable by the petitioner on account of official quarter after his superannuation, rest amount of the gratuity shall be paid to the petitioner only if he has 6 actually vacated the quarter. With the observations/directions aforesaid this writ application is disposed of. ( J. N. Singh, J. ) A.H.