Jharkhand State National Savings Agents Association vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Learned counsel on behalf of State seeks further indulgence to file counter affidavit.

On perusal of record of the case, it appears that after several adjournments, last chance was given to the counsel to seek instruction and file counter affidavit, but despite this, counter affidavit has not been filed and adjournment has been sought. The prayer for adjournment for filing counter affidavit by the State of Jharkhand, is accordingly, rejected.

Instant writ petition has been filed for appropriate writ, order, direction to quash the letter no.218 dated 23.06.2004 (Annexure-3) and letter no.202 dated 06.04.2005 (Annexure-5) issued by the Commercial Taxes and National Savings Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

The petitioners are the agents of Jharkhand State National Savings Association at Daltonganj and the main grievance of the petitioner is that the admitted incentive prizes to the authorized agents of small savings scheme, had been denied to the agents by the respondent no.1-State of Jharkhand.

The State of Jharkhand had denied the admitted incentive for the period 1990-91 to 1993-94 on the ground that liability to pay incentive amount rested with the State of Bihar (respondent no.2) as the said amount pertains before bifurcation of State.

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that in the letter of Secretary, Commercial Taxes and National Savings Department, Government of Jharkhand dated 06.04.2005, the ground for denying the incentive, has been stated that under Section 58 of Bihar Re-Organization Act, 2000 and in the light of the order passed by the Patna High Court, the payment of incentive was not the liability of the State of Bihar.

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of Bihar that definite stand has been taken in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf that a meeting was convened between Chief Secretaries of both States held on 30.09.2001 regarding division of assets and liability between both States and in the said meeting, it came to light that Rupees Two Hundred Crores had been paid by the State of Bihar to ensure the payment against guarantee. A request was also made to the Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, Government of Bihar vide letter no.538 dated 06.05.2005 to the Secretary, Commercial Taxes and National Savings Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to ensure payment of Rs.7,69,693/- to the concerned in view of general principles of division of assets and liabilities contained in Section 41 of Bihar Re-Organization Act, 2000. The main contention on behalf of respondent no.2 is that under Section 56 of Bihar Re-Organization Act, 2000, the liability of existing State of Bihar is confined with area of operation of such assets or persons limited to the territories which, as from that day were the territories either of the State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand. In the present case, the admitted dues that being claimed by the petitioner pertains to the agents of Dumka and Daltonganj which are the part of State of Jharkhand therefore, the impugned letter is against the provisions of Section 56 of Bihar Re-Organization Act, 2000.

Learned counsel on behalf of State draws the specific reference to the minutes of meeting of the Chief Secretary enclosed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State of Bihar wherein at para XI, it has been stated that respective State is liable for the liabilities.

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, the admitted position that emerges is that the petitioner-association was entitled to incentive prizes for the financial period 1990-91 to 1993-94 under the Small Savings Scheme which was raised by the agents of the petitioner-association. The petitioner-association appears to be caught in the dispute for payment and disbursement of the admitted liability between the State of Jharkhand and State of Bihar. Despite the lapse of more than 18 years, the State of Jharkhand has not filed any counter affidavit.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State of Bihar wherein definite stand has been taken that since liability is with respect to the District of Dumka and Daltonganj which came under the State of Jharkhand therefore, in terms of Section 56 of Bihar Re-Organization Act, 2000 as well as minutes of meeting of the Chief Secretary held on 30.09.2001, it was the State of Jharkhand which was liable to pay the incentive prizes. The pleadings as made by the State of Bihar, has not been denied by filing any counter affidavit or supplementary counter affidavit by the State of Jharkhand that excess payment has already been made by the State of Bihar to the Commercial Taxes and National Savings Department, Government of Jharkhand.

Despite this, the impugned letter has been issued denying any liability to pay the said amount. The letter under challenge, is not tenable, and is accordingly, set aside. Respondent no.1 is accordingly directed to disburse/release the incentive prizes to the members of petitioner no.1, within three months of the order along with simple interest @ 6 % on the said deposited amount till the date of its actual payment.

The writ petition is allowed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.