NAMLEM TOPNO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to sanction and pay the post retiral dues of the petitioner including amount of pension, gratuity cash in lieu of unutilized earned leave etc. along with statutory interest since the date of retirement i.e. 31st May, 2009 till the date of payment and for direction to the respondents to regularize the period of services from 31.10.2007 till 12.3.2008. The factual matrix, bereft of unnecessary details in a nutshell is that the petitioner initially joined on the post of Assistant Teacher on 1.9.1977. After rendering unblemished services for more than 3 decades the petitioner retired on 31.5.2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of retirement, the post retirement benefits have not been paid to the petitioner. During pendency of the writ application, I.A. No. 2598 of 2012 has been filed praying therein for payment of the amount of Rs. 2,40,713/- deducted from the gratuity and for regularization for the period from 31.10.2007 to 12.3.2008. This Court vide order dated 3.12.2014 after hearing the Counsel for the respective parties has been pleased to observe that an amount of Rs. 2,40,713/- has been withheld from the total amount of Rs. 5,19,183/- payable under the head of gratuity vide order dated 4.5.2012 issued by the office of Accountant General, Jharkhand. The respondents have chosen to deduct the aforesaid amount after his retirement on wholly incorrect facts and without any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules and the respondent No. 6-District Education Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur was directed to observe the aforesaid contention in accordance with law.

(2.) Heard Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the State as well as Mr. S. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Accountant General.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the rivalized submissions on behalf of the respondents, the moot questions to be determined by this Court is as to whether the respondents are competent to withheld the disputed amount of Rs. 2,40,713/- from the gratuity without resorting to Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Admittedly, at the time of retirement of the petitioner i.e. 31.5.2009 no proceeding was pending nor contemplated against the petitioner for any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. It is no more res Integra when the pension or gratuity is no more a grants or bounty but a property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, as revealed from the available records the aforesaid amount has been deducted from the gratuity without any sanction of any authority and that too without resorting to Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules.