OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for fixing his pension in the revised scale and for payment of Pension, Gratuity, Earned Leave etc. A further prayer for seeking regularisation of the suspension period of 22.07.2003 to 19.03.2005 has also been made. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Supervisor on 07.06.1972 at Chilling Plant, Barauni. He superannuated from service on 31.12.2006 from the post of Manager, Animal Husbandry Department, Dairy Directorate, Bundu. It appears that an enquiry was conducted into the allegation of unadjusted advance taken by the petitioner during the year, 1992-93 and the enquiry report dated 22.04.2004 was submitted. Another enquiry was conducted in the matter and enquiry report was submitted on 15.09.2006. The provisional pension to the petitioner was fixed and the petitioner was paid 90% of the provisional pension from June, 2008 to February, 2013 and after March, 2013 the provisional pension has also not been paid to the petitioner.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed taking a stand that several show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner however, the petitioner did not respond and an amount of Rs. 2,70,416/- has remained unadjusted and therefore, the final pension of the petitioner has not been fixed and though, the amount of Group Insurance and General Provident Fund have been paid to the petitioner, the pension Gratuity and Leave Encashment on account of the pay revision would soon be paid to the petitioner. Paragraph Nos. 18 and 22 of the counter-affidavit are extracted below:

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though it is recorded in the enquiry report itself that the petitioner produced vouchers for the advance given to him, and two enquiries have been conducted into the matter, the final pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner have wrongly been withheld by the respondent-authorities. Referring to letters dated 30.11.2006, 03.08.2007, 30.04.2010 and 25.10.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent-authorities have indicated different amounts, which still have not been adjusted and on that ground alone, the pension to the petitioner has been withheld. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that though the unadjusted advance relates to the period 1992-93, no step was taken by the Department till the year, 2004 and now it appears that while letter dated 25.10.2010 an interest @ 12% on the alleged unadjusted advance has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner, which cannot be sustained in law.