NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the petitioner while was holding post of Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, State of Jharkhand got retired on his superannuation on 31.7.2010. Thereupon only 75% of the pension and the gratuity was sanctioned whereas not a single amount towards leave encashment was sanctioned on the ground that a departmental proceeding which has been initiated against the petitioner is pending and that apart, the petitioner is also an accused in a criminal case but the question falls for consideration whether the payment can be withheld in purported exercise of power as enshrined under Rule 43(a) and 43(b)of the Bihar Pension Rules?

(3.) The proposition of law has already been laid down by the Full Bench of this court rendered in a case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey vs.State of Jharkhand and others, 2007 4 JCR 1 where similar question fell for consideration as to whether the Government does have power to withhold gratuity, leave encashment and pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding in terms of the provision of Rule 43((a) and 4(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.