IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16570 of 2011 Md.Shamimuddin son of late Md. Naseeruddin, at present resident of Gosha-e-Chaman, Opposite Park, Bhawar Pokhar, Patna-800004, P.S. Pirbahore, in the Town and District of Patna. ... ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through District Magistrate, Patna. 2. The Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. Budh Marg, Patna, through its Managing Director, Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Budh Marg, Patna. ... ... Respondents. ---------------------------------- 3. 21.10.2011. Heard Mr. Arif Raza, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Satyapal Narottam, learned A.C. to G.A.8, who appears on behalf of respondent no.1/State of Bihar and Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2/Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. The petitioner, who retired on 31.1.2008 as Field Officer from Jehanabad Branch of the Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), has prayed for directing the respondents to make payment of due amount of gratuity, leave encashment and arrear of salary. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after retirement, the petitioner repeatedly approached the authority concerned for 2 clearing aforesaid dues. However, till date, same has not been paid and thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 on 14.10.2011. In the counter affidavit, virtually the respondent/Bank has not disputed the claim amount of the petitioner, but a plea has been taken that payment shall be made in chronological manner. It was orally submitted by Shri Choudhary that Bank is not paying any retiral dues out of turn. The Bank has also taken a plea that due to financial crunch, they have adopted the policy to make payment in chronological manner. In this case, a rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and in paragraph-5 of the same, petitioner has made specific statement to elaborate the fact that stand taken by the Bank regarding financial crunch is not sustainable, which is evident from statement made in paragraph-5 of the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, which is quoted herein 3 below : “ That the Bank is paying full salary to all its working employees including highly paid Managing Director and according to information available the Bank during last two (2) years has purchased two cars, and has appointed about 150 persons on different posts, and is spending huge amount on renovation of Bank office. In reality there is no fund crunch, but in order to defeat the claim of the petitioner the Bank is taking stand of making payment in chronological order.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that in number of cases, similar stand was taken by the Bank and this Court has directed the Bank to pay all the retiral dues ignoring the stand of the Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on an order passed by this Court reported in 2011(3) PLJR 573 (Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. The Rajya Sahkari 4 Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd.). This Court has also held that as a matter of right a retired employee is entitled to claim his retiral dues and as such dues cannot be refused by the employer on any such un-sustainable plea. It would be appropriate to refer relevant portion of the observation of this Court in paragraph-7 of Mithilesh Kumar Singh’s case (Supra) : “ 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. It need not to be elaborated that retiral dues of an employee cannot be treated as a bounty. After retirement, as a matter of right, a retired employee is entitled to claim his retiral dues and employer is duty bound to pay retiral dues immediately after his retirement. The plea of financial crunch has got no such relevance to deny the claim of retiral dues. If an employee, whose right granted under 5 Article 21 of the Constitution so far as retiral dues is concerned, is infringed and he approaches the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court is required to protect the right of a citizen and in the light of protecting the right, which has been conferred under part-III of the Constitution of India, the writ court is duty bound to protect the right.” Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are other orders also passed by this Court whereby Bank was directed to pay the amount of retiral dues even though the Bank had taken the plea of payment in chronological manner as well as the plea of financial crunch. In view of the facts and circumstances, the present writ petition stands allowed directing the respondent no.2 to make payment of amounts claimed in the writ petition by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of 6 receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner retired in the year 2008 and till date, the amount claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition has not been paid. Accordingly, the respondent/Bank is directed to pay the aforesaid amount along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum, which is to be calculated from the date of claim till the date of its payment. The writ petition stands allowed. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)