GANGA BISHUN MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that he has been arbitrarily kept denied of 10% of his pension, 10% of gratuity and the entire G.P.F. amount on the plea of pendency of a departmental proceeding against him.

(2.) IN short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner initially joined the service as an Engineer Assistant on 23.12.1971 and promoted as Assistant Engineer and later as Executive Engineer. On 19.8.1988 he was placed under suspension and charges were issued initiating departmental proceeding to him on 31.8.1998/ 6.11.1998. The petitioner moved this Court against the order of his suspension in C.W.J.C. No. 7115 of 1998. which was disposed of vide order dated 2.9.1998 (Annexure 9) with a direction to the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of six months from that date. When the enquiry was not concluded, the petitioner filed another writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 4488 of 1999, for quashing of the proceeding itself. This Court, vide order dated 2.8.1999 (Annexure 10) again directed to conclude the departmental proceeding by the end of September, 1999 and also that the final order be passed within the said time. Despite two orders of this Court, the departmental proceeding was not concluded and no final order was passed in the said proceeding. The petitioner was allowed to superannuate on 31.10.1999 and thereafter paid some of his post retiral dues except 10% of pension and 10% of gratuity and full amount of G.P.F. He has also been kept denied of the commutation of pension merely on account of pendency of the said proceeding.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that in view of the Government circulars, contained in Finance Department Memo No. PC -11 - 40 -28/74/9144 F; dated 22.8.1974 read with Memo No. PC -11 -40 -98/74 -1120F; dated 31.10.1974 and Finance Department Resolution No. 3014 dated 31st Juiy, 1980, a pensioner against whom a departmental or judicial proceeding is pending is only entitled for payment of 90% of provisional pension. It is submitted that the said circulars have not been taken into consideration by the Division Bench in the case of Bajrang Deo Narain Sinha vs. State of Bihar (supra) and, as such, according to him, there is no infirmity if the payment of 10% of pension, 10% of gratuity, full amount of G.P.F. and commutation of pension of the petitioner have been kept withheld on account of pendency of the said proceeding.