Harihar Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1815 of 2012 ------- Harihar Pandey, Son of late Sudama Pandey, resident of village Chakrhansi, PO- Pandey Putti, PS- Buxar, district- Buxar (Bihar) ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The state of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Governemtn of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, Ranchi, PO- Project Bhawan, PS- Jagganathpur, District- Ranchi 2.The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, Ranchi, PO- Project Bhawan, PS- Jagganathpur, District- Ranchi 3.The Principal Secretary, Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, Ranchi, PO-Project Bhawan, PS- Jagganathpur, District- Ranchi. 4.The Under Secretary (Administration) Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, Ranchi, PO-Project Bhawan, PS-Jagganathpur, District- Ranchi. 5.The Engineer-in-chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, PO & PS- Doranda, district- Ranchi. 6.The Superintending Engineer, Advance Planning, Government of Jharkhand, PO & PS-Jagganathpur, district- Ranchi. 7.The Execitove Engineer, Advance Planning, Palamau 8.The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. 9.The District Provident Fund Officer, Palamau. 10.The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi .… … ... Respondents ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ------ For the Petitioner : M/r. Kailash Prasad Deo, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Richa Sanchita, S.C.V J.C to S.C.V ------ 06/ Dated:

24. h November, 2016 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.: 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/- 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/-, 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents-authorities have withheld 25 % of the pension and gratuity without any authority of law and in utter violation of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. as reported in 2007(4) JCR1(Full Bench). During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment dated 04.03.2014 passed in G.R. Case No. 375 of 1998, by which, the petitioner has been honorably acquitted in the criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after acquittal in the criminal case, there is absolutely no impediment to release the legitimate post retiral benefits of the petitioner. Even otherwise, by referring to the judgment render in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (Supra), no proceeding under Section 43(a) or 43()b) of the Jharkahnd Pension Rules could be initiated against the petitioner.

5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the State, J.C to learned S.C. V submitted that resolution contained in Memo dated 16.6.2008 of the Finance Department states that 75 % provisional pension should be sanctioned to the retired employees against whom judicial enquiry is pending and when the petitioner retired from the services, Jasidih Thana Case No. 91 of 1998 was effective and in the light of said resolution, petitioner has been sanctioned 75 % of the provisional pension and gratuity. It has further been submitted that the department has issued sanction order dated 16.3.2011 for final withdrawal of GPF amount of the petitioner, as per Anneuxre B to the counter affidavit.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length and after bestowing my anxious consideration to the documents available on record, I am of the considered view that petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (I).There is no gainsaying of the fact that the petitioner after rendering about 32 years of meritorious and unblemished service retired on 31.01.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation as Assistant Engineer. Despite submitting 'no dues certificate', only 75% of the pension and gratuity was sanctioned and paid to the petitioner without any rhyme and reason. Though Jasidih Thana Case No. 91 of 1998 was pending at that time and that would have weighed in the mind of the respondents to withhold the balance 25 % of the pension and gratuity of the petitioner. But, it is no more res integra that pendency of criminal case shall not come in the way of the respondents-authorities to withhold part of full of pension as has been decided by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra). (ii).Furthermore, it appears that the petitioner has been honorably acquitted in said criminal case vide judgment dated 04.03.2014 passed in G.R. Case No. 375 of 1998, hence, even otherwise also, there is absolutely no impediment for payment of balance 25 % of the post reitral benefits of the petitioner. (iii).Law is well settled that pension is neither bounty nor gratis and the same is earning of one's life after rendering a long length of service. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India envisages that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law, but, in the instant case, withholding of 25 % pension and gratuity from the lawful entitlement of the petitioner is unlawful and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and infraction of statutory provisions as contained in Rule 43(a) and 43(b) of the Pension Rules.

7. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and logical sequitur to the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 26.09.2011 vide Annexure 3 is hereby quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to pay the balance 25 % of pension and gratuity; G.P.F, travelling allowance and commutation of pension along with statutory interest within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the said amount @ 9 % per annum from the date of acquittal in criminal case till actual payment.

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/Srikant-