JUDGMENT
Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, no body appeared on behalf of the respondents although this is a part heard matter.
2. The petitioner has prayed for an order directing the respondents to release his increments from 1981; to pay him his salary which has been withheld from December, 1993 to February, 1994; to give
him the revised scale of pay as per the Vth Pay Commission’s Report; to give him time bound promotion; and to quash the notice dated 24.3.1993, by which the petitioner has been informed that he would be superannuating from service with effect from 28.2.1994.
3. So far as the withholding or nonpayment of increments are concerned, reference may be made to the judgment of Ganesh Prasad v. State of Bihar. reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 263, where similar plea was taken by the Government to the effect that the petitioner in that case having not passed the requisite examination (Hindi Noting & Drafting Examination) he should not have been allowed increments.
4. This Court held in that case that retiral benefits of pension/gratuity is to be fixed in terms of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, It is so fixed taking into consideration the pay of certain months and the last pay drawn. Power to curtail or withhold pension/ gratuity is only stipulated under Rules 43 and 139 of the Pension Rules, 1950 but no power has been given to curtail or withhold pension/gratuity for any other reason.
5. In the instant case, a similar plea has been taken since the petitioner did not pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, therefore, his increments have not been granted. The petitioner has retired from service and therefore increments form a valuable part of this retiral benefits, they cannot, therefore, be withheld by the respondents for the aforementioned reasons. Accordingly, respondents are directed to release the increments in favour of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. So far as the prayer of the petitioner that he should be given his salary for the period December, 1993 to February, 1994 is concerned, the respondents have stated at internal page 5 (of paragraph 5) of their counter affidavit that the salary of the petitioner had been regularly drawn, but he never turned up to receive his salary because the petitioner was ordered to hand over charge and in order to avoid the same he did not present himself. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, at paragraph 23 have further stated that the
petitioner was not available at his headquarters and not present in the office of J.P.P.O., Chaibasa and, therefore, because of his own fault the salary for the period December, 1993 to February, 1994 could not be disbursed. In support of the aforementioned contention the respondents have relied upon Annexure ‘E’ and from perusal thereof it is seen that the petitioner’s salary for the aforementioned period could not be paid on account of the fact that he was not present to receive the salary at all.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court directs the petitioner to approach the concerned respondents along with a copy of this order and if the salary for the said period remains unpaid the same shall be paid forthwith.
8. So far as the revision of pay scale is concerned, respondents have stated that it has already been done and in support thereof, they have annexed Annexure ‘A’ to the counter affidavit. Consequently, Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press his claim so far revision of pay scale is concerned.
9. So far as time bound promotion and date of retirement is concerned, this Court gives liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned respondents within four weeks from today and on receipt of such representation the concerned respondents shall dispose it off with a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of aforementioned representation.
10. With the aforementioned observations, this writ application is disposed off. However, there shall be no order as to costs.