- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Respondent Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.
(2.) The petitioner an employee of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. has retired on 30th April, 2010, while working on the post of Incharge District Manager at Ranchi Office. After his retirement, when the post retirement dues were being withheld upon certain orders issued for recovery of the amount against him, he has approached this Court in the present writ application with the following prayers: (a) For quashing of an order dated 12th May, 2010 issued by the respondent no. 2, Chief of Claim,Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Patna, whereunder, a sum of Rs. 3.83.360.65 is sought to be recovered towards interest and cost of suit from the petitioner's salary and his retiral benefits; (b) For payment of admissible retiral benefits such as: (i) Earned Leave in revised pay scale; (ii) Gratuity in revised pay scale; (iii) Arrears of salary for the period April, 1997 to December, 2005 on account of 5th Pay Revision and (iv) Arrears of salary for the period April 2007 to April, 2010 on account of 6th Pay Revision and (c) Further prayer has been made to direct the Respondent Corporation to pay the amount of Rs. 3.50 Lakhs under the head of gratuity without recovery of an alleged sum of Rs. 2,33,361 towards due interest as also for payment of earned leave amount totalling Rs. 2,67,170/2. without resorting to any recovery of Rs. 1.50 Lakhs towards alleged due interest.
(3.) In short, it is the case of the petitioner that earlier during his service career on account of certain shortage found in a Godown where he was posted as Assistant Manager, the Respondent Corporation instituted a Money Suit No. 20 of 1993 before the Court of Sub-Judge, Dhanbad which was decreed vide judgment dated 30th November, 2000, Annexure1 in their favour for recovery of sum of Rs. 2,15,708.80/with pendente lite interest @ 12% per annum. It was indicated therein that the amount already deposited by the petitioner and deducted from his salary shall be adjusted. By referring to Annexure3, office order dated 13th September, 2004, it is stated that an amount in excess was recovered as interest from the petitioner and therefore the Director (Administration) had stopped any further recovery. Despite that after his retirement the respondent by issuance of the impugned order at Annexure6 have chosen to recover an amount of Rs. 3,83,360.65 allegedly as shortage was found during different periods of service of the petitioner in different districts along with interest and cost of the suit. This, according to the petitioner, includes the amount decreed apart from the other amount of loss and damage allegedly found against the petitioner for his posting in other district as per categorical statements made at paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit. It is submitted that the respondents after his retirement, without resorting to any procedure established in law or under any service rules and without following the principle of natural justice, have chosen to recover the said amount which is unsustainable in law as well on facts. It is submitted that the amount decreed against the petitioner stands recovered against his salary during his service period and any other amount which is alleged to be recoverable can only be recovered in accordance with law after a procedure laid down under the service rules of the organization governing the petitioner's case and after due notice and show cause to the petitioner. The proposed action of the respondents in recovering the aforesaid amount is unsustainable and he is entitled to the payment of admissible retiral dues.;