PATNA, India, Oct. 3 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 4:

Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hitesh Suman, learned counsel for the State.

2. Several teachers were terminated from service on the ground that there initial appointments were irregular, which termination orders were put to challenge by filing various writ petitions before this Court including the petitioner whose writ petition No. was CWJC No. 19550 of 2016. All the writ petition filed were disposed off by an order dated 21.02.2017 whereby the termination orders of the teachers including the petitioner was set aside with a liberty to the State authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing.

3. It was thereafter that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Craft Teacher in the State Girls High School, on 11.04.2017 alleging that at the time of appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Craft Teacher in the year 1989, the petitioner was over aged and accordingly the petitioner's appointment as Assistant Craft Teacher was irregular.

4. As the petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2018, the departmental proceeding initiated on 11.04.2017 was continued under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 vide Memo No. 29 dated 05.01.2019. On conclusion of the departmental proceedings continued under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 the impugned order dated 12.07.2021 has been passed by the Regional Deputy Director Education, Patna Division, Patna (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) whereby petitioner's 100% pension, gratuity and encashment of earned leave has been withheld.

5. Challenging the impugned order dated 12.07.2021 issued by the Regional Deputy Director Education, Patna Division, Patna withholding the petitioner's pension, gratuity and encashment of earned leave, the petitioner has contended that under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 the proceeding can be continued only with respect to an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding. The petitioner has contended that since the proceeding initiated against the petitioner is for the event which took place beyond four years, the said proceeding could not have been continued under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

6. In this regard learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this issue has been settled in an LPA preferred by a similarly situated person called Geeta Kumari in LPA No. 866 of 2024, wherein a departmental proceeding instituted and continued under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 for the event that have taken place beyond four years of such institution of such proceedings have been held to be illegal and the order passed for withholding 100% pension, gratuity and earned leave has been set aside.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMzg3MSMyMDIyIzEjTg==-QnveRP4ebtc=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.