INDU BHUSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application has prayed to quash Resolution dtd. 4/3/2024 contained in Memo No. 1066(S) whereby proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules have been instituted. Further he prays for declaration that the departmental proceeding which was not concluded within the time frame as fixed by the Court vide order dtd. 3/11/2020 passed in WP(S) No. 1599 of 2014 be declared nonest in the eye of law and any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules would be time barred and hit by law of limitation. He also prays for payment of arrears of salary.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Resolution dtd. 4/3/2024 is bad and the departmental proceeding could not have been converted to the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. It is his case once the Hon'ble High Court in WP(S) No. 1599 of 2014 vide order dtd. 3/11/2020 had fixed the time frame to conclude the department proceeding, no proceeding would have been continued beyond the said time frame nor the said could have been converted into that of one under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. He relied upon the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in "Yamuna Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and Others" reported in 2002 (1) JLJR 407. He further argues that on the facts, none of the conditions as laid down under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules is fulfilled. Thus no proceeding can be initiated.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that admittedly there was time framed by the High Court but the said could not be complied with but still then in a bonafide manner the proceeding proceeded and after superannuation of the petitioner the same is being converted and there is no illegality in the same.