Murari Prasad vs The State of Bihar and Others

The appeal is barred by limitation. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averments made in the limitation petition we are satisfied that sufficient ground has been made out to condone the delay in filing this appeal. Accordingly, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned.

Admittedly, the appellant has retired from Jharkhand State after bifurcation. So according to Clause (6) of the Eight Schedule of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 the retiral dues have to be paid by the State of Jharkhand. The appellant who is suffering from illness should not be allowed to suffer in view of the controversy as to who is liable to pay because Clause (6) of the Eight Schedule of the said Act is very clear. In that view of the matter, the liability is of the State of Jharkhand. However, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the writ application before this court is not maintainable because the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of State of Jharkhand but in our view, the State of Jharkhand should not too technical in these matters. Once Clause (6) of Eight Schedule is clear the retiral dues should be paid immediately. If there is any delay, the appellant should approach before the court of competent jurisdiction for issuance of necessary direction.

With the aforesaid observation, the appeal stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to counsel for the Jharkhand State.