INDRA KUMAR SINHA, SON OF CHANDRIKA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF KALISTHAN ROAD, P.O. GPO, RANCHI, P.S. LOWER BAZAAR, DISTRICT RANCHI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents for payment of 100% pension and gratuity and other retrial dues with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of due till its actual payment.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that petitioner was posted as Dealing Assistant (Clerk) in the office of the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi till 25.07.1983 and thereafter, he was posted as Revenue Dealing Assistant. The petitioner was implicated in Vigilance P.S. Case No.33 of 2002 (Special Case No.38 of 2002) on the allegation that the petitioner was involved in creation/opening of illegal demand in mutation proceeding and departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner giving rise to charge sheet. Thereafter, vide Annexure-2, inquiry in respect of alleged charges was conducted and the report of the inquiry officer was recommended for punishment of censure and withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect. Thereafter, vide Annexure- 3, respondent no.3 vide order dated 20.02.2006 imposed the punishment of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect and also withheld the salary during the period of suspension. Against the order dated 20.02.2006, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent no.2, whereby vide order dated 22.05.2008 the respondent no.2 disposed of the appeal by setting aside the order of punishment imposed against the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner preferred revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi against the order passed by the appellate authority and vide Annexure-6 to the writ application, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority for consideration of the matter afresh, giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter, vide Annexure-7 dated 30.05.2014, the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi submitted a report to the Additional Collector-cum-Enquiry Officer, Ranchi in response to his direction observing therein that the charges levelled against the petitioner is not proved. The petitioner retired on 28.02.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation, after rendering more than 38 years of service. After retirement from Government services, the respondent no.4 sanctioned 75% of provisional pension to the petitioner and 75% of the provisional gratuity, as evident from Annexures-8 and 9 of the writ application. Annexure-10 of the writ application also reveals that the petitioner has been sanctioned leave salary. Annexure-11 also reveals that the respondent no.4 has issued sanction order for payment of Group Insurance. It is averred in the writ application that the Special Case No.38 of 2002 is pending and no charge has yet been framed against the petitioner till filing of the writ application. It is also averred in the writ application that no proceeding either under Rule 43(b) or Rule 139 of Jharkhand Pension Rules has been initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to balance 25% of the pension and gratuity and the action of the respondents in withholding 25% of the pension and gratuity in absence of proceeding either under Rule 43(b) or Rule 139 of Jharkhand Pension Rules is unlawful, unjust and without authority of law.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the action of the respondents in withholding 25% of pension and gratuity in the absence of any proceeding under Rule 43(b) or Rule 139 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, is without jurisdiction and without any authority of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that illegal withholding of the post retirement benefits by the respondents, is against the settled principles of law, which has been decided in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in (2013) 3 JLJR 655 . By referring to the aforesaid decision learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to withheld amount of pension and gratuity along with the interest.