SURESH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that as a consequence of Office order contained at Annexure -4 dated 19.2.2001 issued by the District Panchayatraj Officer, Ranchi under the direction of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi only 75% of the pension has been paid to him and payments of Group Insurance, Gratuity, Provident Fund has been withheld. The said order was passed in terms of Rule 43(B) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules in lieu of the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, in such circumstances, submits that respondents be directed to take step in respect of the departmental proceeding as the same has remained pending for almost 12 years after issuance of Annexure -4 in 2001.