Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1170 (JHR)

Jagdish Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-21

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT Heard Sri B.P.Pandey, senior counsel for the petitioner, J.C. to G.P.II for the respondent State, Sri S.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 and Sri S.P.Roy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 7. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay him his post retiral dues including Pension, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, G.P.F. 1975 to 1980-81 together with statutory interest and also to fix the petitioner’s pension in accordance with law and to release such payments to him. 3. The petitioner was employed under the respondents and had retired as Junior Engineer (Civil) under the Executive Engineer, Quality Control and Monitoring Division, Deoghar. After superannuation, he was expecting payment of his retiral dues but the same was not paid to him. When the retiral dues were not forthcoming, the petitioner filed a writ application before the Patna High Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 10879 of 2002. 4. The writ application was disposed of by the order of the Court dated 08.05.2003 with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the concerned authorities and with a corresponding direction to the concerned authorities of the respondents to constitute a Committee to look into the grievance of the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order on the claim of the petitioner for the payment of his retiral benefits. It appears from the same order passed by the Court in the earlier writ application that the petitioner’s claim was contested by the respondents on the ground that there was a reasonable ground to entertain the belief that the petitioner was never granted promotion to the post of Junior Engineer and as a matter of fact, there was another person who also bore the same name as the petitioner and an issue was raised that the matter needs to be probed in order to find out as to whether the petitioner had actually functioned as Junior Engineer and whether the petitioner deserves the benefits of the post of Junior Engineer. It was in this context that the Court had directed for the constitution of a Committee to assess the entire matter and to take appropriate decision on the same. 5. It was in this context that the Court had directed for the constitution of a Committee to assess the entire matter and to take appropriate decision on the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that despite the aforesaid order of the Court, the respondents have not assessed nor taken any decision regarding the payment of the retiral dues to the petitioner. On the contrary, when the petitioner had persistently pursued his demand, the respondents retorted by filing an F.I.R. on wild allegations against the petitioner. The criminal case though initiated, was not pursued by the concerned authorities and the same is still pending without any final decision taken on the same. Learned counsel adds further that though such wild allegations have been made against the petitioner in the attempt by the respondents to deny and frustrate the petitioner’s claim for his retiral dues, but no proceeding departmentally was ever initiated during the entire tenure of petitioner’s service prior to the date of his superannuation. Furthermore, although the petitioner had retired way back in 2001, but no proceeding under the provisions of Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules was ever initiated against the petitioner on any charge whatsoever nor has any finding been recorded in any such proceeding against the petitioner that he had obtained any monetary or other benefits by practicing fraud or misrepresentation upon the concerned authorities of the respondents. Learned counsel submits that in such circumstances, the respondents cannot legally or legitimately withhold the payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent State would reiterate the same stand as earlier taken in the previous writ application and submit that on the basis of the findings of the Committee, a criminal prosecution was initiated against the petitioner which is still pending. Learned counsel however concedes that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner during the tenure of his service and neither was any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules initiated against the petitioner, post retirement although the committee constituted pursuant to the directions contained in the order of the High Court in the earlier writ application, had conducted an enquiry and recorded its findings on the basis of which the criminal prosecution was initiated against the petitioner. 7. 7. From the pleadings and the admitted facts, I am satisfied that the respondents have not arrived at any definite conclusion or finding pursuant to any departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner that he had drawn any benefit illegally by practicing fraud or misrepresentation upon the respondent authorities. It is not denied that during the entire tenure of service of the petitioner, no proceeding was initiated against him whatsoever. The mere pendency of the criminal prosecution which was initiated after the retirement of the petitioner, would not entitle the respondents to withhold the post retiral benefits to which the petitioner would be otherwise entitled. 8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I direct the concerned authorities of the respondents to assess the amount of retiral dues under the various heads which is payable to the petitioner since after the date of his retirement and to pay the same to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order along with statutory interest wherever applicable. If the amount is not paid within the period stipulated, the same shall carry an interest @ 12% per annum, calculated from the date when the retiral benefit was payable to the petitioner, till final payment. The Respondents shall also assess the pension payable to the petitioner and ensure payments thereof together with arrears of pension, within the period stipulated above. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent State.