SITA RAM ORAON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the resolution no. 6972 dated 26.10.2007 ( Annexure-8) whereby he was asked to show cause as to why a departmental proceeding be not initiated against him under Rule 55 of the Civil Services( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1935. The petitioner has also sought direction upon the respondents to pay him all the retirement benefits including gratuity, pension, leave salary and other benefits payable to him on his retirement on 30.11.2007.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he was appointed as Sub Deputy Collector where he joined on 10.5.1974. Later on he was appointed to the post of Deputy Collector where he joined on 1.4.1976. He was granted promotion to the Junior Selection Grade w.e.f. 28.2.1985 vide notification dated 2.3.1989. Senior Selection Grade was granted vide notification dated 21.4.1990 and he was posted as Additional Collector, thereafter. It is the case of the petitioner that though meetings of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held in 2004 but for lack of the A.C.R. of the petitioner, his name could not be recommended but juniors were recommended. The petitioner, however retired from the post of Joint Secretary under the Respondent- State on 30.11.2007. Just before his retirement the impugned show cause (Annexure-8) dated 26.10.2007 has been issued in respect of the allegations of misconduct such as financial irregularities, misappropriation, payment of vouchers twice etc.

(3.) THE respondent- Accountant General has also appeared and filed their supplementary counter affidavit. It is stated on their behalf that the provisional pension and gratuity has been released. Leave encashment amount has also been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner vide authorization letter dated 21.1.2008. The benefits of implementation of 6 th Pay Revision, so far as the post retirement benefits like leave encashment, gratuity pension is concerned, the same have also been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner by different authorization letters. Counsel for the Accountant General further submits that petitioner's claim for commutation of pension is, however pending for want of final sanction for full and regular pension by the department because of pendency of departmental proceeding. These facts have not been rebutted by the petitioner by way of rejoinder.