PRADIP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Pradip Kumar Srivastava
STATE OF BIHAR
Click here to view full judgement.
Mohit Kumar Shah, J. -
(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in memo no. 3481 dated 25.11.2019, passed by the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, i.e. Respondent No. 3, whereby and whereunder the representation filed by the petitioner against the order of recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,99,900/- from the amount of leave encashment of the petitioner has been rejected.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 09.12.1980 as Assistant Engineer and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, whereafter he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year, 2000. The petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Patna West Pali, for a period of about 10 months i.e. from 06.03.2000 to 25.01.2001 and at that time, a work relating to construction of road from Dulhin Bazar to Rai Talab and from Pali to Kinjar was going on from 1998- 1999 itself, however, the petitioner was transferred from the said place on 25.01.2001. Subsequently, the petitioner had superannuated from his services while working on the post of Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Maharajganj, on 31.01.2015.
(3.) It is the further contention of the petitioner that without giving any show cause notice or without initiating any proceeding, an order has been passed by the respondents to recover a sum of Rs. 3,99,900/- from the amount of leave encashment payable to the petitioner herein. The petitioner had then filed a representation objecting to the said deduction from his leave encashment amount, however to no avail, necessitating filing of a writ petition before this Court bearing CWJC No. 6560 of 2019, which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 23.04.2019, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Respondent No. 3, who was directed to dispose of the representation within a period of six weeks thereafter by a reasoned order in accordance with law. The petitioner had then filed his representation, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Respondent No. 3.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.