IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.4051 of 2006
UMA NATH SHARMA SON OF LATE YADU NATH
SHARMA (MANDAL ) OF VILLAGE FATHEPUR, P.S.
NATH NAGAR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE TREASURY OFFICER, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR.
3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER BHAGALPUR CUM
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR.
4. THE DIRECOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR,
BUDDHA MARG, PATNA.
5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EDUCATION
BHAGALPUR.
6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION, MUNGER.
7. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
BHAGALPUR.
8. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
LAKHISARAI.
9. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA.
-----------
03. 20.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State.
The basic grievance of the petitioner is against
the order dated 17.01.2006 issued by the Accountant
General as contained in Annexure- 10 with regard to the
deduction of 25 percent of the pension, in view of the
order passed by the Director, Secondary Education,
Patna as per letter no. 1898 dated 28th of June 2005.
The aforesaid letter of the Director, Secondary Education
is not under challenge. However, on perusal of the said
order, as contained in Annexure- 10 series at page 46, it
would appear that by the aforesaid order after a
2
department enquiry the petitioner was imposed with the
aforesaid punishment of deduction of 25 percent of the
pension.
In this view of the matter letter issued by the
Accountant General as contained in annexure- 10 does
not suffer from any illegality and the same has been
issued pursuant to the order passed by the Director,
Secondary Education in a departmental enquiry for the
charge proved against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
he has not been paid his gratuity, however, there is no
such prayer nor any averments made in the writ petition.
More so, petitioner earlier filed a writ petition with
respect to the payment of retiral dues especially with
regard to leave encashment. The writ petition was
disposed of by order dated 09.10.2001 in C.W.J.C. No.
12708 of 2001 as contained in Annexure- 5.
From perusal of the counter affidavit as also the
copy of the bank cheque as contained in Annexure- C
the amount of leave encashment has been paid and
received by the petitioner who made endorsement on
the back of the said cheque. Even though there is no
specific averment with regard to the non-payment of
gratuity, however, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner has not been paid his gratuity.
3
In absence of any such averment, this court is not in a
position to issue any direction with regard to the payment
of gratuity.
Counsel for the State submits that prayer of the
petitioner challenging the claim for payment of 25
percent of the pension which has been deducted is not
admissible to him for the reason that the aforesaid
deduction of 25 percent of the pension from his pension
has been passed as a measure of punishment after
holding a departmental enquiry. The charges against the
petitioner have been found proved and the said order of
punishment still subsisted.
Considering the submission of the parties I do
not find any merit in this writ application and the same is
accordingly, dismissed.
Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)