RAJGRIHI RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to pay the entire retirement benefits of the petitioner, i.e. provident fund amount, gratuity, leave salary, pension, bonus, arrears of pay and also difference of pay from 1989 to 1990 with statutory interest payable on the dues.

(2.) THE petitioner retired from the services of the Chapra Municipality on the last day of January 1994, as Jamadar (Head Sweeper) after putting in service of 33 years. The first grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he has been paid a total sum of Rs. 239/ - towards earned leave. In his submission, his last drawn salary was Rs. 1795/ - per month and he is, therefore, entitled to leave encashment for 240 days which comes to Rs. 14360/ -. He invited my attention to paragraph 10 of the writ petition wherein the necessary averment have been made for deficient payment for leave encashment. On a bare perusal of paragraph 10 of the writ petition, I find that the requisite foundational fact has not been laid in the writ petition in order to satisfy the Court that the petitioner has been paid deficient amount of leave encashment. In that view of the matter, the claim for earned leave is rejected on the ground of vague and incomplete pleadings.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the petitioner has been given the gratuity amounting to Rs. 14025/ - plus dearness allowance thereupon, totalling a sum of Rs. 16830/ -, whereas the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 31153/ -. The requisite foundational fact in the writ petition is absent. Learned counsel has, however, taken me through paragraph 7 of the "Supplementary affidavit to reply to the counter affidavit", wherein he has asserted that total sum of Rs. 31153/ - towards the gratuity is payable to him minus the amount already paid to him. Apart from the fact that the factual foundation has not been laid in the writ petition, the averments made in paragraph 7 aforesaid is vague and inadequate. Annexure 6 is the chart the heading of which is "Payment of Gratuity payable at a glance". It Is nowhere stated in the said affidavit as to the source of this chart, authenticity of the same, its applicability to the petitioner, and even if applicable to the petitioner, in what way it shall actually work out for the petitioner. Inspite of repeated quaries, learned counsel was unable to show the relevance of the said chart. Therefore, the contention for the balance amount of gratuity is rejected.