RAMESH KANT MISHRA Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to pay him his entire retrial dues including Regular Pension, Gratuity and commutation of pension to the extent of 40 per cent and the payable amount and also to pay interest on the delayed payment of pension.

(3.) The petitioner had retired from the post of Accounts Assistant in the services of the Electrical Supply Division, Daltonganj which is an unit of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi on 31.07.2005. Upon the payment of the retrial dues being not made promptly, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court vide W.P. (S) No. 6067 of 2005. The writ application was disposed of by this Court by order dated-01.12.2005, with a direction to the Respondents to ensure payments of the petitioner's retrial benefits along with its calculations and to assign reasons for not paying the other amounts within the period stipulated in the order. The petitioner was given liberty to file representation before the concerned authorities of the Respondents. The petitioner filed his representation, upon which his pension was fixed provisionally to the extent of 90 per cent of the total pension. However, when even the provisionally fixed pension was not paid to him, the petitioner filed a contempt case vide Contempt Case (C) No. 120 of 2006. Upon the contempt application being filed, the Respondents authorities released 90 per cent of the petitioner's pension. The Respondents withheld ten per cent pension and gratuity of the petitioner and neither did they allow the commutation of pension nor paid any statutory interest on the delayed payment of the G.P.F. and the G.S.S. The reason for withholding the pension and the Gratuity, as stated by the Respondents, was that a vigilance case vide Vigilance Case No. 39 of 1997 is pending against the petitioner. On such plea taken by the Respondents, the Contempt proceedings was dropped with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of withholding the pension and Gratuity before the appropriate Court. The decision to withhold the full pension and the Gratuity was communicated to the petitioner by the concerned department of the State Government vide letter dated-25.10.2007 (Annexure-4), stating therein, that sanction for the petitioner's prosecution was issued by the appropriate authority of the State Government on 13.12.2003 in connection with the Vigilance Case no. 39 of 1997 and therefore, the payments were withheld.