STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR Vs. JAGARNATH MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 4.2.2002, the learned Judge while allowing CWJC No. 1016 of 1999 (R) directed, the respondent No. 3 in that writ petitioner to pay the retrial dues to the petitioners within a period of two months. The operative portion of that order reads thus :

(2.) THE District Officer, Khadi Gramodyog Board, Patna was respondent No. 3 in the writ application, whether it was the District Officer or the Chief Executive Officer, Khadi Gramodyog Board, in pith and substance the direction to pay the retiral dues of the writ petitioner was aimed at the Khadi Gramodyog Board and it was the Board which was held liable by the learned Single Judge to pay the retrial dues to the petitioner. Since admittedly, the retiral dues were not paid in time (these have not been paid actually till date), a contempt application [being MJC No. 554 of 2000 (R)] was filed and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.8.2001 impugned in this appeal, inter alia, passed the direction that if the retrial dues were not paid, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar shall appear in person in Court. In the aforesaid order, it was also observed that the stand taken by the respondent in the contempt application that one of the reasons of not paying the retrial dues to the petitioner was that his appointment had not been approved by the State Government was wholly unjustified at this stage of the proceedings.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties in this appeal, first and foremost, we must clearly emphasize that the aforesaid stand of the respondents in the contempt application, viz., that the writ petitioner's appointment had not been approved by the State Government was wholly untenable and totally misconceived. In the face of the clear direction issued by the writ Court on 4.2.2000, the binding obligation to pay the retiral dues to the writ petitioner came into operation and this obligation had nothing to do with the question whether the writ petitioner's appointment had been approved by the State Government or not. In reiteration, therefore, we wish to observe and direct that the right to receive the retrial dues stood vested in the writ petitioner from the date the aforesaid order was passed and this right continues in operation until the amount in full is paid to him. This right now is not depending on the approval or non -approval of his appointment by the State Government or by any other authority. Undisputedly, the writ petitioner served the respondents for full 36 years. When he retired and the writ Court had issued the aforesaid mandamus for payment of his retrial dues, the respondents came up with the aforesaid misconceived and untenable plea about the non -approval of his appointment. If anyone was aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge, it was open to that party to challenge that order in appeal. Not doing so has resulted in the aforesaid order dated 4.2.2000 having assumed finality in law. That being the case, therefore, we have no hesitation in observing, declaring and directing that notwithstanding the so called alleged non approval of his appointment or notwithstanding even any alleged irregularity in his appointment, the fact is that he had served for 36 long years and because of the finality in law of the aforesaid judgment of the writ Court, the writ petitioner is entitled to receive his retrial benefits.