Uday Sharma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.541 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.895 of 2017 ====================================================== Uday Sharma, Son of Late Hriday Sharma, Resident of Village- Harpura, Police Station- Bikram, District- Patna.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The District Magistrate, Patna.

3. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Patna.

4. The Block Development Officer, Bihta (Patna).

5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

6. The District Provident Fund Officer, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mrs. Anita Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam - AAG12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 25-06-2018 Seeking exception to an order passed on 06.02.2018 by the learned Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 895 of 2017 dismissing the petition on the ground of petitioner not approaching the Court with clean hands and by suppressing certain facts, this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and there being delay of 36 days in filing of the appeal, I.A. No. 3061 of 2018 has been filed seeking condonation of the delay.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, delay

Patna High Court LPA No.541 of 2018 dt.25-06-2018 2/3 of 36 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 3061 of 2018 stands allowed and disposed of.

On account of the fact that petitioner was facing charges of embezzlement in the discharge of his duties, departmental proceedings and criminal case were initiated against him and when his post retiral claims were not settled in accordance to the requirement of Rule 43B and C of the Bihar Pension Rules, the writ petition in question was filed. On a perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court we find that the Writ Court has refused to interfere into the matter on various considerations which pertains to the conduct of the petitioner in filing the writ petition.

Be it as it may be, the question of settlement of such post retiral claim after retirement and the interpretation of Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules has been subject matter of consideration by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arbind Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 15328 of 2016 decided on 04.04.2018) and in view of the aforesaid judgment, now, the State is required to decide the claim of the petitioner pertaining to settlement of his post retiral claim in accordance thereof.

Patna High Court LPA No.541 of 2018 dt.25-06-2018 3/3 Keeping in view the aforesaid, we allow this appeal and issue the following directions:- On the petitioner filing a certified copy of this order, respondents shall settle the post retiral claims of the petitioner strictly in accordance to the directions issued and the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Arbind Kumar Singh (supra), the claim of the petitioner shall be settled and paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. As far as recovery of the amount from the petitioner is concerned, the same shall be proceeded in accordance to the requirement of law.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) P.K.P./- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 30.06.2018 Transmission Date