Paras Nath Singh vs The High Court Of Judicature at Patna and Others

K. K. Mandal, J.—These two writ petitions have been tagged for consideration and disposal. They have thus been heard together with the consent of the parties. In CWJC No. 6953 of 1997, the petitioner has questioned the sustainability of the orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna as contained in Annexures-1,2, and 3 whereby he was compulsorily retired from the service of the High Court with effect from 31.8.1996. The subsequent order as contained in Annexures-2 and 3 are the orders rejecting the representation and the memorial filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 30.8.1996 (Annexure-1) compulsorily retiring the petitioner from the service of the High Court with effect from 31.8.1996. In CWJC No. 15502 of 2005, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider and pay him part of the pension and gratuity which were withheld. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Respondent-High Court by a communication dated 19.9.2003 (Annexure-1) sanctioned only provisional pension/gratuity (75%) which was subsequently authorized and paid to the petitioner. The remaining portion of the pension and gratuity (25%) was/were, however, not authorized and paid to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he would not press CWJC No. 6953 of 1997 and the claim of the petitioner raised in CWJC No. 15502 of 2005 be considered and relief prayed therein be allowed.

In view of aforesaid, the application being CWJC No. 6953 of 1997 is dismissed as not pressed.

In the writ application (CWJC No. 15502 of 2005) seeking payment of remaining portion of gratuity/pension, the Respondent-High Court has filed a counter affidavit.

Learned counsel for the High Court with reference to the averments made therein submitted that since the writ petition preferred by the petitioner questioning the order of his compulsory retirement is/was pending, the claim of the petitioner for the release of the remaining amount of pension/gratuity could not be considered.

I have perused the stand of the respondent(s), as reflected from the counter affidavit. Relevant portion of paragraph 11 whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:-

Thereafter, following orders have been passed on 20.7.2004 on the aforesaid representation of Sri Singh.

If this employee has filed a writ petition arising out of his compulsory retirement, then the matter is sub judice.

Await decision of the writ petition.

Subsequent similar representation of Sri Singh dated 19.7.2004 and 18.8.2004 have also been ordered to be put up after disposal of writ petition (C.W.J.C. 6953/1997).

It thus appears that the claim of the petitioner for release of the remaining portion of the pension and gratuity has not been considered by the High Court on the ground that CWJC No. 6953 of 1997 filed by the petitioner questioning the order of his compulsory retirement was sub judice in this Court.

Since the petitioner has sought permission to withdraw CWJC No. 6953 of 1997 which has already been allowed hereinabove, there is, thus, no proceeding pending in this High Court at the instance of the petitioner questioning the sustainability/legality of the order directing his compulsory retirement from service of the High Court.

Parties are in agreement that even in case of compulsory retirement and/or order directing premature retirement of an employee, the same would not be an obstacle in granting full pension, if he otherwise qualifies therefor.

Having appreciated the stand of the parties and in view of the fact that now there is no proceeding pending and/or sub judice in this High Court at the instance of the petitioner questioning his order of compulsory retirement, the Respondent-High Court is required to take action/steps forthwith towards sanctioning of full amount of pension and gratuity in favour of the petitioner.

Let the respondents, particularly respondent no.2, take appropriate steps/action towards sanctioning of remaining amount of pension/gratuity in favour of the petitioner as quickly as possible preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before respondent no.2. In other words, the petitioner is now entitled to payment of full pension and gratuity and, as such, the respondents are required to sanction full pension and gratuity in favour of the petitioner.

Accordingly, CWJC No. 15502 of 2005 is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that without any valid reason the respondent had withheld 25 % pension and gratuity. In his submission, the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would be entitled to interest on the said amount as per the relevant circular of the Government. Since the said circular of the Government has not been enclosed with the writ petition, this Court is unable to examine the aforesaid aspect of the matter. However, this Court would grant the petitioner liberty to raise a claim in this regard before respondent no.2 by way of filing a representation which shall be examined in accordance with law.