DEO DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The grievances of the petitioner in the instant case is that by the impugned order contained at memo No. 4380 dated 25.8.2012 passed by the respondent No. 2 pursuant to the directions passed earlier in W.P.S. 2724 of 2011, 25% of the final pension and gratuity amount has been withheld by granting 75% of the aforesaid amount.

(2.) According to the petitioner he was an employee of Water Resources Department and retired on 31.1.2011 while under deputation in the Rural Development Special Division as In-charge Executive Engineer. In such circumstances, he had approached this Court for payment of post retirement dues in W.P.S. 2724 of 2011 which was disposed of with a direction to the competent Authority i.e. Principal Secretary. Water Resources Department to decide the same in accordance with law within stipulated time. Thereupon, the impugned order has been passed contained at Annexure-3 dated 25.8.2012 by the respondent No. 2.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid post retirement dues i.e. pension, gratuity to the extent of 25% has been withheld allegedly on the ground of pendency of a criminal case being Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 129 of 2009 in which he was not named as accused. It is further submitted that subsequently another F.I.R. has been registered being Hazaribagh (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 175 of 2013 instituted by the Executive Engineer of the concerned Department. However, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no proceedings have been initiated under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules and merely on the ground of pendency of the criminal case, which has been instituted against him in 2013 such amount cannot be withheld in view of the ratio laid down in the Full Bench judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Jharkhand, 2013 3 JLJR 655 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has also been considered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6770 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1427 of 2009 preferred by the State of Jharkhand itself. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment dated 14.8.2013 while posing the question that whether part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of the departmental/criminal proceedings can be withheld or not upheld the judgment of this Court and answered the question so posed. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the person cannot be deprived of his pension without the authority of law and any attempt of the appellant-State Government to take away part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in withholding the aforesaid amounts.