DEVAKI NANDAN PRASAD versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 921 · Decided: 22-04-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DEVAKI NANDAN PRASAD 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
April 22, 1983. 
ID.A. OF.SAi .AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Writs issued by Court must be complied with protnptly-Persons responsi-
ble for non-compliance liable for contempt action-Ex~mplary costs awarded for 
harassment. 
In Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1971] Supp. S.C.R. 
634 decided on May 4, 1971 the Court had, after con1ing to the conclusion 
that the petitioner hereiri- was a member of the Bihar Ed_ucation Servie<: 
entitled to penslon under r. 5 of the Bihar Pension Rules, issued a writ· of 
mandamus directing the State Government to consider the claim of the 
petitioner rOr payment or pension according- to . Jaw. Inspite or the petitioner 
having approached the Chief Minister for implementation of the- ntandamus it 
was not until 1974 that the concerned file. reached th~ Chief Minister and orders 
were passed by him that the petitioner should be deemed to belong to Class I 
post·of Selection Grade from January 1, 1952 and that his claim• should be 
settled within a month. Three years after this direCtion of the Chief Minister 
the petitioner received intimation that his pension had been comptited o'n the 
basis that he had retired from Class II[ service. 
Further representations 
having.failed to evoke any response frOm the State- Government, the petitioner 
approached the.Court ollce a:gain. 
Allowing the petition, 
HELD : The respondent State and all its officers are bound to compute 
pension of the petitioner. not only on the footing that he is a member of the 
Bihar Education Service but also on the footing he was promoted to Class II 
by the date mentioned in the earlier judgment and from January l, 1952 to 
Class I as rightly held by the Chief Minister. Officers dealing with the pension 
case of the petitioner appear to have scant regard for the decision of the 
Supreme Court in fhat both the promotion to Class Il and further promotion 
to Class I from ~eemcd date"s Were ignored and peD.sion was computed on the 
basis that the petitioner retired from Class IU service. The State cannot be 
permitted to play ducks and drakes with a solemn deci•ion of this Court. The 
State ·arid the subordinate o~cers responsible for computation of pension of 
the petitioner are directed to complete this computation bY, July 31, 1983 and by 
that date pension payment order correct a.pd consistent with the direction 
herein given shall be issued without fail. The State Is also· directed to pay the 
arrears of pension on the' aforesaid computatjon within the same period with 
interest at 6 per cent from January 10, 1967. As the otficero of the State have 
harassed the petitioner which is intentional, deliberate and motivated,. exemp• 
lacy costs quantified at Rs. 25,000 shall be pai~ to. the petitioner ~fore July 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
SUPkEMB COUllT llBPOllTS 
h983j 2 s.c.R.. · 
31, 1983. The slightest failure-or deviation from the .. .time schedule in carryina 
out this mandiimus will be uncluestionably visited with contempt action. 
[924 H; 92S A; 92; C-H; 926 A;) 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 3053 of 1980. 
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
Dr. L.M. Singhvi, S.K. Sinha, S:K. Verma, A.M. Singhvi and 
Laxmi Kant Pandey for the Appellant. 
D. Goburdhan for the Respondent. · 
C 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
DESAI, J. 
A pensioner since 16 years is knocking at the doors 
of the conrt of justice and the executive in search of his hard earned 
pension and, is 'being rebuffed by those who would meet the same 
fate by the passage of time and yet with his meagre resources, he has 
. been dragged to the apex ·court for the second time after a lapse of 
12 years 4uring which abominably long p~riod the mandamus of 
this Court has been treated as a scrap of paper. What a pity, and 
what helplessness ? 
The facts relevant to the disposal of this petition under . Art. 
32 of the Constitution are set out in details in Deokinandan Prasad 
v. State of Bihar & Ors.(1) and therefore, need not be recapitulated 
· here. 
A Constitution Bench presided over by the then Chief Justice 
Mr. Sikri issued a mandamus in the writ petition filed by the present 
petitioner which reads as under : 
"The order dated August 5, 1966 ·declaring under 
r. 76 of the Service Code that the petitioner has ceased 
to be in government employ is set aside and quashed. 
The order dated June 12, 1968 stating that under r. 46 
of the Pensi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.