Madhusudan Ram vs State of Jharkhand and Others

D.N. Patel

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed as an Assistant on 24th August, 1973 in Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Giridih and he retired as an Assistant Manager from there on 21st January, 2001, but he has not been paid his salary for the period running from 07.8.2000 till his retirement, nor has he been paid gratuity. Therefore, the present petition has been preferred. Nonetheless, his Surcharge Revision Application No. 241 of 2000 is pending before respondent No. 2 and, therefore, petitioner will pursue that remedy before respondent No. 2.

Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 submitted that petitioner has played a fraud with the respondentsBank and has fraudulently sizable amount was paid to his own person to the tune of Rs. 45000/on 13th June, 1995. This amount has to be returned by the petitioner with interest to the Bank. If the simple interest @ 14% is calculated, it comes to Rs. 37,800/. Therefore, that amount towards principal amount plus interest comes to Rs. 82,800/. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondentsBank that this amount of Rs. 82,800/is to be recovered from the petitioner.

Even if the tallest claim of the petitioner is accepted, the gratuity amount, as per petitioner, is Rs. 57000/plus salary amount comes to Rs. 24,500/. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs. 81,500/which is the claim of the petitioner and the sum which has to be recovered from the petitioner is Rs. 82,800/and, therefore, still there is a sizable amount recoverable from the petitioner as on 2001 and if the interest is added upto today, the said amount may cross Rs. 1300/. The said amount with interest will be very sizable amount which has to be recovered from the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this petition deserves to be dismissed and if the petitioner is pursuing his alternative remedy which is Surcharge Revision Application No. 241 of 2000, he may pursue the said remedy but there must not be any further litigation at this Court.

In view of this limited submissions, this writ petition is disposed of as the petitioner is pursuing his alternative remedy by way of Surcharge Revision Application No. 241 of 2000. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that whatever will be outcome of the said revision application, that will be accepted by the petitioner and he will not enter into further litigation before this Court.