Smt. Miliscent Panna vs State of Bihar and Others

Tapen Sen, J.—Heard the parties.

In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4.9.1997 (Annexure 7) by which the pension of the petitioner has been fixed on the basis of Rs. 4,100/- and further by reason of the same order, a, direction has been passed to realise the alleged excess amount paid to him.

According to the petitioner, she retired on 31.7.1996. No pension nor payment of any post retrial dues was given/ made as a result of which the petitioner was compelled to move before the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court vide CWJC No. 446 of 1997(R). The said writ application was disposed of on 23.7.1997 directing the respondent concerned to issue sanction order with respect to the amounts not yet paid to her.

Mr. M.M. Pan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the aforementioned order was passed, the respondents passed the impugned order whereafter the sanction order vide Annexure 8 was issued.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 (the District Superintendent of Education), it has inter alia been stated at paragraphs 6 and 7 that all post retrial benefits have been paid and arrears of payment since 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973 have also been sanctioned. It has also been stated at paragraph 7 that the directions given in the 1st writ application i.e. CWJC No. 446 of 1997(R) have been complied with. It has also been further stated that steps for realization of excess amount will have to be taken in as much as the respondent 4 has to obey the order of respondent No. 2.

From a plain reading of the impugned order, it appears that the same has been passed totally on surmises and/or conjectures in as much as the language used therein is that on "seeing" the service book of the petitioner it "appears" that wrong withdrawal of salary has been made which was realizable

�mi;qZ� fo"k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd Jherh iUuk ds lsok iqLrd dks ns[kus ij yxrk gS fd muds }kjk xyr osru fudklh fd;k x;k gS tks muls olwyfu; gS�

In the last paragraph it has been stated that the sanction order for payment of pension should be made by taking Rs. 4,100/- as the last pay drawn

�budk 4100 :- vfUee osru ekudj isa''ku izkf/k�r dj fn;k x;k gS buds }kjk miknku en esa 900 :- vf/kd Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS A tks muls olwyuh; gS A �i;k fn;s x;s fooj.kh ds vuqlkj osru ekudj vf/kd Hkqxrku yh xbZ jkf''k dks olwy djus dh dkjokbZ dh tk;@rFkk lwpuk bl dk;kZy; dks Hksth tk; A�

In the same letter the last pay that has been reflected is Rs. 4,200/-. It is not known nor any reasons have been given as to why, while passing the impugned order, one hundred rupees (Rs. 100/-) was reduced from the last payment of the petitioner.

In that view of the matter there appears to be no justification in passing of the impugned order. Further more, taking into consideration that the impugned order is totally mechanical and has been passed without any rationale, the same is fit to be quashed.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.9.1997 (Annexure 7) is set aside and quashed.

With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed.

No order as to costs.