HARIHAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing letter dated 26.09.2011 issued by Under Secretary, Administration, Department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand vide Annexure-3 whereby 75 % of the provisional pension and 75 % of the provisional gratuity has been sanctioned. The petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents for payment of full pension as well as gratuity, provident fund along with statutory interest and traveling allowance to the tune of Rs. 54,670.00 and commutation of pension.

(2.) The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that initially the petitioner joined the services in the year 1979 and subsequently he was posted as Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Department and after rendering about 32 years of meritorious services the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Engineer on attaining the age of superannuation. It has been averred in the writ application that even after issuance of 'no dues certificate', the petitioner has been paid 75 % of the post retirement benefit, without disclosing any rhyme and reason therefor. But, perhaps due to pendency of Jasidih P.S. Case No. 91 of 1998, part of pension and gratuity has been paid to the petitioner. It has further been averred in the writ application that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the date of retirement, hence, the respondents-authorities have no right to withhold balance 25% of the pension and gratuity. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed representation on 24.11.2011 before the respondents for payment of entire pension as well as gratuity but nothing has been paid. It has further been averred in the writ application that the Executive Engineer, Advance Planning Division has recommended before Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department for sanction of fund for payment of travelling allowance to the tune of Rs. 54,770.00, as evident from Annexure 6 to the writ application.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the callous, indifference and inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.