Patna HC Directs Retired Clerk To First Represent To Chief Engineer Over Four Lost Increments, 25% Pension/Gratuity Cut

The petitioner, a retired correspondence clerk, challenged the cancellation of two increments for 2010–11 and 2011–12, recovery of alleged excess payment, non-grant of two further increments, and deduction of 25% of his gratuity and pension under Rule 139(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules

He stated that an order in MJC No. 2774 of 2017 had granted him liberty to challenge the penalties in appropriate proceedings

The State submitted that he had instead been directed to first make a representation to the Chief Engineer but had approached the High Court directly

The Court applied the procedural direction concerning a representation to the Chief Engineer, as recorded in the proceedings arising from MJC No. 2774 of 2017

It directed that the representation be considered in accordance with law and decided by a reasoned and speaking order

Although Rule 139(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules was cited in the challenge to the pension and gratuity deduction, the Court did not determine its application or the merits of that challenge

The Court accepted the State’s submission that the petitioner had been granted liberty to submit a representation to the Chief Engineer but had approached the Court without doing so

On that basis, it declined to entertain the writ petition at that stage.

It left the underlying disputes—including the increments, recovery, and pension and gratuity deductions—for consideration by the Chief Engineer on a representation

It granted the petitioner liberty to submit a representation, with a copy of the order, to the Chief Engineer within 30 days; the Chief Engineer was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within 90 days of receiving or being furnished a copy of the order