- (1.) By the instant interlocutory application, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order of dismissal dated 14.3.1996 contained at Annexure-2 to the writ petition and also for quashing of the order dated 15.09.1999 contained at Annexure-4 to the writ petition by which the appeal of the petitioner against the order of his dismissal has also been dismissed on the grounds that both the orders have been passed by the same authority i.e. the State Government at the highest level and communicated through the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of erstwhile Bihar. The petitioner seeks to impugn the aforesaid impugned orders by way of amendment in the present writ application. It is the contention of the petitioner that the these facts have come to the notice after information furnished under the Right to Information Act, on the application of the petitioner, through letter dated 04 th September 2009 which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, objected to the same stating that the writ petition was originally filed for seeking the relief in respect of payment of pensionary benefits and the petitioner being conscious of the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order passed in 1996 and 1999 respectively, have chosen not to assail the same in the main writ application. He submitted that by incorporating such amendments, matters which have been settled long back, shall be reopend. However, no affidavit in response to the present I.A. has been filed on behalf of the respondent although the instant I.A. was filed in August 2011. However, after hearing the parties, it appears that the order of dismissal and the order passed in appeal have been passed by the same authority at the highest level i.e. the Hon'ble Minister of the Department concerned which fact has come to the notice after furnishing of the information under the Right to Information Act to the petitioner after filing of the writ application and has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. Though the petitioner had originally sought for a direction to pay the pensionary benefits in the main writ application, but the benefits of grant of pension and gratuity are also dependent upon the determination of issues raised in the instant interlocutory application where such orders are under challenge. Moreover, such orders of dismissal and the appellate authority are already on record in the main writ application and the same are assailed on pure questions of law by the petitioner. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this I.A. is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to incorporate the prayer made in the instant interlocutory application in the main writ application. This I.A. shall be treated as a part of the main writ application. I.A. is disposed of. WPC No. 708/2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This writ petition has been preferred initially for payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. However, by way of subsequent amendment, the orders dated 14.03.1996 and 15.09.1999 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of erstwhile Bihar contained at Annexures-2 & 4 to the writ application, have been challenged.
(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed in the year 1976 on the post of storekeeper in the Irrigation Division, Sikatia, Deoghar under Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar. A criminal case vide Sarath (Chitra) P.S. Case No. 08 of 1985 was lodged on 30 th January 1985 against one Ravi Pada Manjhi, Junior Engineer, Shyam Sundar Bhalotia, Carriage Contractor and the petitioner on the written complaint of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sikatia on the allegation of shortage of 53.549 MT of Iron Rods while in transportation from Irrigation Division, Jamui to Sikatia Division in the year 1977-78 and 1978-79 by which it was alleged that a loss of Rs. 2,89,159.28 have been caused to the State Exchequer.;