IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9345 of 2011 Mithilesh Kumar Singh, son of Late Ram Nandan Prasad Singh, Resident of village and P.O. Mahuri, P.S. Nalanda, District Nalanda at present residing at Haridas Chatterji Lane, Durgabari, P.S. Civil Line, Gaya, District Gaya. ... ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. (Bihar- Jharkhand), Budha Marg, Patna through its Chairman. 2. The Chairman, The Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. (Bihar-Jharkhand), Budha Marg, Patna. 3. The Managing Director, The Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. (Bihar-Jharkhand), Budha Marg, Patna. ... ... Respondents. ----------- 4. 4.7.2011. Heard Shri Birendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Prasad Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents/Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). The petitioner, while invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, has prayed for directing the respondents to make payment of his retiral dues. The dues has been categorically enumerated in Paragraph-6 of the writ petition, which are as follows : (i) Ammount of Group Insurance (ii) Gratuity in the light of Government Rules which Bank has adopted in its Staff Regulation. 2 (iii) Leave Encashment (iv) Pay from December,2005 to April,2008 (27 months) Rs.3,39,875.00 P. (v) Security Money (Rs.2,500/-) (vi) Arrear of D.A. (vii) Interest for the late payment and cost of litigation and other dues for which petitioner is entitled to be paid. The petitioner had retired as Supervisor from the Bank with effect from 30.4.2009. The petitioner claims that despite repeated representation, the respondent/Bank has not taken any hid to redress his grievances. In paragraph-8 of the writ petition, a categorical statement has been made that widow daughter is dependent on the petitioner and her daughter i.e. grand daughter of the petitioner is in need of emergent heart surgery. Even request made by the petitioner for payment of retiral dues in the light of aforesaid emergent situation has not persuaded the Bank to clear his 3 retiral dues. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent/Bank where, in some and substance, it has been asserted that due to financial crunch the respondent/Bank is not in a position to immediately pay the retiral dues. It has been pleaded that retiral dues in the Bank is being cleared in chronological manner and till date the employees, who retired up to December,2005 have only received their retiral dues. However, the claim of the petitioner has not been disputed by the Bank in its counter affidavit. Some of the retiral dues have also been paid as per the counter affidavit. The petitioner was paid Provident Fund along with interest. It has further been indicated that Group Insurance amount of Rs.82,492/- has already been sanctioned. So far as Gratuity and Leave Encashment is concerned, it has been stated that same will be paid in chronological manner. Shri Rajesh Prasad Chaudhary, learned counsel for all the respondents, at 4 the very outset, has argued that in number of cases this Court has approved the stand of the Bank for clearing the dues in chronological manner. He has specially referred to Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, which is an order passed by a Single Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the Bank has further referred to Annexure-4 to the writ petition i.e. an order dated 15.12.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.13106 of 2008, wherein taking sympathetical view, the court had persuaded the Bank to make payment of some amount and as such payment was made to the petitioner of the said case. Learned counsel for the Bank has further produced a photo copy of an order passed by a Division Bench on 1.8.2005 in L.P.A. No.696 of 2005. It was submitted that a Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 1.8.2005 had approved the stand of the Biscomaun in the same manner as dues were being paid to other employees in terms of the seniority on availability of the fund. Relying on aforesaid orders of this Court, Shri Chaudhary has argued that the petitioner 5 may not be granted any relief and petitioner will be paid his retiral dues in a chronological manner as and when his turn comes. In this case, the petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit and in rejoinder, a specific statement has been made by the petitioner that financial position of the Bank is not like as it has been shown in the counter affidavit. The Bank is purchasing number of vehicles. It has further been stated that Bank is disbursing loans in crores. On this plea, it has been argued that case of the Bank may not be equated with the case of Biscomaun. In some and substance, it was argued that only with a view to defeat the claim of the petitioner, the Bank is taking a stand for making payment in chronological manner. 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 6 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 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. So far as the present case is concerned, on the basis of pleading made in the writ petition, the court is of the opinion that it is an emergent situation for directing the Bank to release all his retiral dues. The petitioner, who is having only one daughter and whose daughter i.e. grand daughter of the petitioner is in urgent need of money for surgical operation of heart. In such a situation, if the retiral 7 dues of the petitioner are not immediately paid by the respondent, it will amount to defeating the right to life and liberty of the petitioner. So far as order dated 18.5.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No.4956 of 2011 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit) is concerned, in the said case, petitioner, who was already functioning in the Bank, had claimed for payment of arrear of salary. It was not in relation to payment of retiral dues. Accordingly, the order referred by learned counsel for the Bank may not help the Bank in proper adjudication of the present case. In similar circumstances, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.16653 of 2010 had claimed for payment of his arrear of salary. From Annexure-4 to the writ petition i.e. order dated 15.12.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.13106 of 2008, it is evident that after the interference of this Court, the Bank had made some payment to the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the Bank cannot take the plea that 8 orders referred above passed by this Court can be treated as a precedence. The said cases were decided in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. So far as order of L.P.A. Court is concerned that also does not help the petitioner due to the reason that the said case was in relation to the employees of the Biscomaun not in relation to the Bank in question. The statement made in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, wherein it has been indicated that Bank is disbursing loan and purchasing vehicles further makes it clear that case of the petitioner, who is employee of the Bank, cannot be equated with the employees of the Biscomaun. In view of the facts and circumstances as indicated above, particularly the emergent situation of the petitioner for rendering immediate medical aid to his grand daughter, it is desirable to direct the respondent/Bank to make payment of all the retiral dues, particularly claim, which has been mentioned in paragraph-6 of the writ petition. 9 Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents, particularly respondent no.3/Managing Director of the Bank is directed to take all steps to make payment of aforesaid retiral dues within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that petitioner shall be entitled to get interest on delayed payment. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)