IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 3767 of 2009
---
Basudeo Bhagat ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents : J. C. to G.P.III
---
3. 11.3.2010
: Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.6.2009 (annexure
16) passed against the petitioner for the recovery of 2,28,000/- along
with the 10% interest.
It is submitted that petitioner was given Rs. 11,25,000/- for
construction of five rooms, but after constructing three rooms with
other constructions and spending Rs. 9,03,003/- thereon he retired,
and thereafter he deposited the balance amount of Rs. 2,21,997/-
with the department. It is further submitted that even on inquiry, it
was found that work for the said amount was completed by the
petitioner. He further submitted that the respondents are taking
pedantic view of the matter by calculating the cost of three rooms at
Rs. 2,25,000/- per room, whereas apart from three rooms other
constructions like verandah, toilets, staircase etc. were also done.
Moreover, even in the said circulars dated 17.12.2004 and 27.7.2005
(annexure 1 & 2) the cost of construction of one room has been
tentatively fixed at Rs. 2,25,000/- per room, and as per the
requirement of the school, the necessary changes could be made in
the plan; and that in the present case the plan was made by the
engineers deputed by the D.D.C. on the orders of the Deputy
Commissioner, Gumla.
Counsel for the State supported the impugned order.
After hearing the parties and going through the records, I am
satisfied that the order of recovery should be set aside. Admittedly,
petitioner completed the work of Rs. 9,03,003/- out of 11,25,000/-
given to him and he returned the rest amount. The order of recovery
was passed only on the basis that the cost of construction was Rs.
2.25 lacs per room which comes to Rs. 6.75 lacs for three rooms,
-2-
ignoring that other constructions were also made as per the plan
approved by the technical officers and recorded in the measurement
book.
In the circumstances, that part of the order dated 10.06.2009 is
set aside by which order has been passed to recover 2.28 lacs along
with the interest from the petitioner.
Now, the respondents are directed to pay the undisputed and
legally payable retiral dues of the petitioner along with the calculation
thereof within six weeks from the date of receipt /production of copy of
this order. If petitioner has got any further claim, he can file
representation in that regard which will be disposed of by passing
reasoned order thereon within six weeks from the date of receipt of
such representation, if any.
With these observations and directions, this writ petition is
disposed of. However, no costs.
(R. K. Merathia, J.)
R. Shekhar Cp 2