IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15754 of 2007 Shiv Kumar Prasad Singh, Son of Late Sharda Prasad Singh, Resident of Village – Brahpur, P.O. – More, P.S. – Mokamah, District – Patna. ……………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar Patna. 3. The Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Simit Budh Marg, Patna. 4. The Chairman, Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank, Simit, Budh Marg, Patna. 5. The Managing Director, The Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank, Simit Budh Marg, Patna. 6. Director (Personnel) The Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Simit Budh Marg, Patna. …………… Respondents ----------- 4 12/08/2011 Heard Sri Birendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State and Sri Rajesh Prasad Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6/Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. The petitioner, who retired with effect from 30.06.2007, from the Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank’) while invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court has prayed for directing the Respondents to pay all his retrial benefits and legal dues. The petitioner had retired from Shekhpura Branch of the Bank. After retirement, amount under the head of contributory provident fund and group insurance has been paid, but till date, following dues were not cleared which has been enumerated in paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition: i) Amount of Insurance. ii) Amount of gratuity. 2 iii) Amount of leave encashment. iv) Salary for working period from February 2007 to March 2007 and June 2007 for three months Rs. 35,319/- v) Amount of Bank contribution for Rs. 3531.00 which has been occurred from above mentioned arrear’s salary. vi) Difference amount for Rs. 2,26,383/- which occurred after fixation of pay on promoted scale. vii) Bank contribution on above mentioned arrears for Rs. 22,638/- viii) Arrear D.A. from 1.7.2000 to Sept. 2001 which was sanctioned vide Order no. 9821 dated 2.10.2001 and also from 1.1.2001 to May 2003 sanctioned vide memo no. 2430 dated 6.6.2002. ix) Security money Rs. 2500/- which is deposited in the Respondent Bank. x) Arrears for Rs. 5200/- which is occurred after sanctioned of Earned leave vide Order no. 1063 dated 27.12.99. xi) Difference amount of due stagnation increments which was due on 24.9.2000, 24.9.2003 and 24.9.2006. xii) Amount of statutory up to date interest on dues amount and legal cost. 3 After his retirement the petitioner represented before the authority concerned for clearing his dues, even then no action was taken by the Respondent-Bank and finally the petitioner was constrained to approach this court by filing the present writ petition in the month of December, 2007. Despite the fact that the present writ petition was filed in the year 2007 no counter affidavit was earlier filed on behalf of Respondent-Bank. However, on 2nd August, 2011 on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6/Bank a counter affidavit has been filed. In the counter affidavit the Respondent-Bank has not disputed the claim of the petitioner. They have admitted that certain amount under different heads were sanctioned by the competent authority in the year 2007 and some dues were paid which is evident from paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit. It would be appropriate to quote paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit for just decision of the case which is as follows:- “4. That the petitioner was a Field Officer and he retired from service of the Bank on 30.6.2007 from Sheikhpura Branch of the Bank. After retirement from service his following retrial dues has been paid/sanctioned for payment. (i) Provident Fund Rs. 4,18,111/- sanctioned vide office order No. 1444 dated 25.7.2007 and paid vide Cheque No. 087095 dated 30.7.07. (ii) Group Insurance Rs. 72,852/- sanctioned vide office order no. 2182 dated 5.10.07. (iii) Gratuity and leave encashment Rs. 1,47,502/- 4 has been sanctioned vide office order no. 778 dated 24.6.08. (iv) Arrears of salary for the working period as well as difference of salary on account of refixation of pay in promoted seats Rs. 2,61,706.50 has been sanctioned vide Office order No. 3505 dated 11.01.2008. (v) Keeping in view the financial condition of the bank, under a policy decision the dearness allowance was given vide office order no. 982 dated 29.10.2001 with effect from 1.7.2000 under the following condition:- (a) For present, the monetary benefits will be given from October 2001. (b) For arrears of dearness allowances for the period July 2000 to September 2001 will be decided later on as per the financial condition of the Bank. Vide bank order no. 2430 dated 10.06.2003 the order for payment of dearness allowance with effect from 1.1.2001 was given under the following conditions:- a. For the present Monetary benefit will be given with effect from June 2003. b. For arrears from January 2001 to May 2003 decision will be taken subsequently as per the financial condition of the bank. It will be relevant to state that due to bad financial condition no decision could be taken for payment of arrears from July 2001 to September 2001 and January 2001 to 5 May 2003. Accordingly for the said period the arrears of dearness allowance has not been paid to any of the employees of the bank. However, as and when the Financial condition of the bank will improve or fund is received in the bank the arrears of aforesaid period will be paid to the petitioner alongwith other employees of the bank. In sum and substance on behalf of the Bank a plea has been taken that financial condition of the Bank was not appropriate for making payment. Sri Birendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that now the financial position of the Bank has already improved and as such Bank may not be allowed to withhold post and pre retrial dues of the petitioner. Sri Rajesh Prasad Chaudhary, learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank has tried to justify the stand of the Bank that retrial dues will be paid in chronological manner. Sri Chaudhary has drawn my attention to Annexures ‘B’ & ‘B/1’ to its counter affidavit i.e. Office Order of the Bank. It was submitted that as per the decision of the Bank retrial dues of the employees who had retired till 31st March, 2005 were to be paid as per Order dated 29.10.2009 i.e. Annexure – B/1. Sri Chaudhary has also drawn my attention to an order dated 29.10.2010 passed in CWJC No. 16653 of 2010 at pages 14 to 16 of the counter affidavit and also on Annexure –C i.e. a photo-copy of Order dated 18.05.2011 passed in CWJC No. 4956 of 2011 (pages 18 to 20 of the counter affidavit). It was argued by Sri Chaudhary that 6 different Bench of this court has approved the stand of the Bank for clearing the dues 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 retrial 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 retrial dues and employer is duty bond to pay retrial dues immediately after his retirement. The plea of financial crunch has got no such relevance to deny the claim of retrial dues. If an employee, whose right granted under Article 21 of the Constitution so far as retrial 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 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 retrial 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. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances of the present case particularly in view of the stand taken by the petitioner regarding 7 improved financial position of the Bank, the court is of the opinion that any dues of retired petitioner cannot further be delayed. I have already indicated that denying dues to the retired employees amounts to infringing his right conferred under Part-III of the Constitution of India and with a view to protect the right of a citizen it is duty of a writ court to interfere in the matter. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case the court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for directing the Respondent-Bank particularly Respondent No. 5/Managing Director, The Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank, to clear all the dues of the petitioner and make payment within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 5, is further directed to pay interest at the rate of 4 % per annum on all the dues of the petitioner from the date of retirement of the petitioner till the date of payment. Accordingly with above observation and direction the writ petition stands allowed. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)