CHITRANJAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division, Water Resources Department got retired on 31.7.2010 on his superannuation but he has been paid pension and the gratuity to the extent of 75% only by virtue of an order as contained in memo No. 4617 dated 23.11.2010 and thereby he was denied rest of 25% of the amount of pension and gratuity which is quite illegal and is in the teeth of the provision as contained in Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and is also against the decision rendered in a case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2007 4 JCR 1, and therefore, the order as contained in Annexure 1 is fit to be quashed.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been stated that 75% of the provisional pension and the gratuity has been sanctioned for the reason that a criminal case is pending against him and at the same time a departmental proceeding has been initiated for the irregularities committed by this petitioner putting the State to a great loss.