IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A.No.284 of 2008
With
I.A.No.2345 of 2008
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... ...Appellant(s)
-Versus-
Baikunth Nath Dwivedi & Ors. ... ... ...Respondent(s)
------------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
For the Appellant(s): Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, S.C.-III.
For the Respondent(s): M/s B.K.Dubey & S.Srivastava,
Advocates.
------------
03/ 15.09.2008
This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-State of
Jharkhand against the order dated 31.01.2008 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(S)No.46 of 2006, which is time barred by 163 days for which
an application (I.A.No.2345 of 2008) for condonation of delay has been filed.
In spite of this delay, we considered it just and appropriate to permit the
Appellant-State of Jharkhand to address this Court on the merit of the
appeal in order to obviate any injustice that might be caused to the
Appellant-State of Jharkhand in the event of dismissal of the appeal merely
on the ground of delay without considering the same on merit.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant, therefore, addressed the
Court on the merit of the appeal and submitted that the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge is fit to be quashed and set aside as
the Respondent-Employee cannot be held entitled to be paid the entire
retiral dues since the amount of Rs.1,08,850/- is fit to be deducted as a
consequence of the order of punishment imposed on him in a departmental
proceeding. However, on perusal of the impugned order, we have noticed
that the order of the learned Single Judge is only to the effect that the
petitioner-Respondent herein is entitled to the payment of his entire retiral
dues which includes the amount of gratuity, leave encashment and other
pensionary benefits. The order does not indicate that the Petitioner-
Respondent is required to be paid even those dues which are fit to be
deducted and hence we do not appreciate the concern of the appellant to
file this appeal and the contention that the entire dues are not payable to
the respondents-writ petitioner even if some of the dues are legally fit to be
deducted. It goes without saying that if an order of deduction is passed, the
same shall be communicated to the Respondent, leaving it open to the
Respondent to assail the same before the appropriate forum that may be
available to him. In so far as this appeal at the instance of the State of
Jharkhand is concerned, we find no ground to entertain the same in spite of
the delay of 163 days merely on the ground that the entire retiral dues
should not be paid. When the learned Single Judge has passed the order to
2.
make the payment of entire retiral dues to the Respondent, it is implied that
the retiral dues include only the legal dues and if certain dues are fit to be
deducted then the same obviously will have to be dealt with after granting
opportunity of hearing to the Respondent in this regard.
The appeal under the circumstance is dismissed on merit as
also on the ground of delay. Consequently, I.A.No.2345 of 2008 also
stands rejected.
[Gyan Sudha Misra, C.J.]
[D.K.Sinha,J.]
P.K.S./S.B.