Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
This case was filed by a retired Sub-Inspector of the Bihar Police (petitioner), who claimed certain post-retirement monetary benefits that he believed were wrongfully denied by the authorities.
The petitioner raised two primary grievances:
- Leave Encashment: He was entitled to payment for 300 days of accumulated leave at the time of retirement, but he had been paid for only 205 days. He sought payment for the remaining 95 days.
- One Month Additional Salary: He also claimed entitlement to an additional one month’s salary for the financial years 2015–2016 and 2016–2017, based on a government circular issued by the Home (Police) Department in Memo No. 4495 dated 30.06.2015, which provided such benefit to police officials.
The State government opposed his claims and filed a counter-affidavit. According to the State:
- The petitioner was only entitled to 205 days of leave encashment, as per their calculation chart.
- Regarding the extra one month’s salary, the State argued that the benefit had been extended to officers of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau by a later resolution (No. 5290 dated 30.06.2017). Since the petitioner had already been transferred out of the Vigilance Bureau on 01.04.2017, he was not entitled to the benefit for the years in question.
Court’s Findings and Directions:
- The Court directed the State to provide the petitioner with a copy of the leave encashment calculation sheet within two weeks and to give him a personal opportunity to be heard.
- The calculation must be finalized within four weeks thereafter, and if any further amount was found due, it had to be paid within eight weeks.
- Regarding the extra one month’s salary claim, the Court noted that the petitioner did not press this issue at this stage. Instead, he sought liberty to challenge the validity and sustainability of the 2017 Resolution in a fresh writ petition. The Court granted this liberty.
Thus, while the issue of leave encashment was addressed with a direction for reconsideration, the claim of one month’s additional salary was left open for future litigation.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- For retired government servants: The case emphasizes the importance of proper calculation and transparency in post-retirement benefits like leave encashment.
- For the police force: It clarifies that special benefits, such as additional salary, are strictly dependent on government notifications and an officer’s posting at the relevant time.
- For administration: The judgment ensures that employees must be given a fair hearing when discrepancies in financial entitlements are raised.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Reasoning
- Was the petitioner entitled to leave encashment for 300 days instead of 205?
✅ Court directed State to recheck and finalize calculations after hearing the petitioner. - Was the petitioner entitled to one month’s additional salary for 2015–2016 and 2016–2017?
❌ Not decided. Petitioner did not press the issue, but Court allowed liberty to raise it in a fresh case.
Case Title
Ram Binay Sharma v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19777 of 2018
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 310
Coram and Judge
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikash Jain
Names of Advocates
- For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma and Mr. Amresh Kumar
- For the State: Ms. Divya Verma, AC to AAG 3
- For the Vigilance: Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate
Link to Judgment
MTUjMTk3NzcjMjAxOCMxI04=-V60XEmSAbJk=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
