State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Singh and anr.

State of Bihar and ors. vs Rajendra Prasad Singh and anr.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Patna Decided Feb 24, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/119984

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/119984
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. and R.N. Prasad, J.
Decided On: Feb 24, 2003
Case Number: L.P.A. No. 136 of 2003
Subject: ;Service
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service laws - Retirement--Voluntary retirement--Appellant retired voluntary under the scheme framed for the purpose--Claim Reinstatement because he was wrongly retired--Legality of--After having taken the advantages of a voluntary scheme, accepting the voluntary benefits under the scheme and having taken retirement...

Key legal issue: ;Service
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections: Service Law

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Bihar and ors.

Respondent

Rajendra Prasad Singh and anr.

Legal References

Acts: Service Law

Court's Analysis

Prior History: Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. and R.N. Prasad, J.
1. The delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.
2. This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order of 25 November, 2002 on Civil Revision No. 47 of 2002 : State of Bihar and Ors. v. Rajendra Prasad Singh and Anr.. The review was being sought on an order dated 15 January, 2002.
3. The learned Judge has given certain findings based on the record, on the basis of which he was declined to review the order. These findings are very serious. Th

Excerpt

service laws - retirement--voluntary retirement--appellant retired voluntary under the scheme framed for the purpose--claim reinstatement because he was wrongly retired--legality of--after having taken the advantages of a voluntary scheme, accepting the voluntary benefits under the scheme and having taken retirement and released the accommodation, now to take a stand that he has been retired wrongly and he should be reinstated--unjustified. - - clearly, there was a collusion between some officials of the government if the assertion is correct that salary for the period of 1992-97 was paid unauthorisedly. the payment was good payment while it was being delivered. 5. clearly, if the contention is that the payment is unauthorised then the persons who made this unauthorised payment regardless of the authorities who were and regardless of the rank, a departmental proceeding should be taken out against them for serious action. clearly, there was a collusion if the contention on behalf of the block development officer is correct. making notings and draftings to create a pleading during the pendency of the case and avoid giving the correct version before the high court when the writ petition was pending itself is a bad......of the court while hearing the writ petition itself but that has not been done.' 4. who exactly was seeking the review of the order? the review was being sought by a block development officer. clearly, there was a collusion between some officials of the government if the assertion is correct that salary for the period of 1992-97 was paid unauthorisedly. the payment was good payment while it was being delivered. the aspects that the payment of salary was irregular was not an aspect on the record of the writ petition. after the writ petition was filed the government records were being tailored to suit a situation to manufacture a plea. 5. clearly, if the contention is that the payment is unauthorised then the persons who made this unauthorised payment regardless of the authorities who were and regardless of the rank, a departmental proceeding should be taken out against them for serious action. 6. the contention of the learned counsel on the letters patent appeal is that the payment has not been made. regardless, whoever sanctioned this an action has to be taken against those persons. clearly, there was a collusion if the contention on behalf of the block development officer is correct. making notings and draftings to create a pleading during the pendency of the case and avoid giving the correct version before the high court when the writ petition was pending itself is a bad. this leads to multiplicity of litigations and wasting of the court's time. the state of bihar will deposit rs. 5000/- (five thousand) as a special cost with the bihar state legal services authority. 8. dismissed.

Full Judgment

Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. and R.N. Prasad, J.

1. The delay in filing the appeal is

condoned.

2. This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order of 25 November, 2002 on Civil Revision No. 47 of 2002 : State of Bihar and Ors. v. Rajendra Prasad Singh and Anr.. The review was being sought on an order dated 15 January, 2002.

3. The learned Judge has given certain findings based on the record, on the basis of which he was declined to review the order. These findings are very serious. The learned Judge observed that 'all those notings were done and verified after the writ petition was filed.......' 'Even some notings were made during the pendency of

the writ petition. Those modifications could have been brought to the notice of the Court while hearing the writ petition itself but that has not been done.'

4. Who exactly was seeking the review of the order? The review was being sought by a Block Development Officer. Clearly, there was a collusion between some officials of the Government if the assertion is correct that salary for the period of 1992-97 was paid unauthorisedly. The payment was good payment while it was being delivered. The aspects that the payment of salary was irregular was not an aspect on the record of the writ petition. After the writ petition was filed the Government records were being tailored to suit a situation to manufacture a plea.

5. Clearly, if the contention is that the payment is unauthorised then the persons who made this unauthorised payment regardless of the authorities who were and regardless of the rank, a departmental proceeding should be taken out against them for serious action.

6. The contention of the learned Counsel on the letters patent appeal is that the payment has not been made. Regardless, whoever sanctioned this an action has to be taken against those persons. Clearly, there was a collusion if the contention on behalf of the Block Development Officer is correct.

Making notings and draftings to create a pleading during the pendency of the case and avoid giving the correct version before the High Court when the writ petition was pending itself is a bad. This leads to multiplicity of litigations and wasting of the Court's time. The State of Bihar will deposit Rs. 5000/- (five thousand) as a special cost with the Bihar State Legal Services Authority.

8. Dismissed.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2003 Same Parties State of Bihar and ors. vs Rajendra Prasad Singh and anr. Same Subject ;Service Same Judge Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. and R.N. Prasad, J. Acts & Sections Service Law

;Service