Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1174 (JHR)

Smt. Manjula Sharan Sahay v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-21

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay her retiral dues i.e. pension, gratuity, GPF amount as well as difference of salary on account of non-fixation of Central Pay Scale from 1993 to 1994 and also for payment of difference of pay for the period from November 1996 to August, 1999 during which the' petitioner was paid only the subsistence allowance on account of her being under suspension and also to pay her other admissible dues together with interest thereon from the date of entitlement till the date of her superannuation. 3. The petitioner retired from service in March, 2002. She had earlier, filed CWJC No. 2694 of 1997R before this Court in which by order dated 16.2.1999 the respondents were directed to conclude the departmental proceedings against the petitioner within six months. The petitioner was also directed to co-operate in the departmental proceedings, failing which the authorities were directed to complete the proceeding ex parte in accordance with law. It was further directed that at the conclusion of six months if the proceeding was not concluded, the order of suspension of the petitioner would stand revoked. However, direction was given to the respondents to pay the petitioner the admitted arrears of salary and the subsistence allowance within two months from the date of the order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that subsequent to the aforesaid order passed in the writ petition, the respondents have paid group insurance and provisional pension as well as arrears of salary to the petitioner. As regards difference of arrears of salary for the period when the petitioner was under suspension, the same has not been paid. Likewise, the amount of gratuity, leave encashment has also not been paid due to the pendency of the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings against the petitioner, which has not been concluded and for this reason, final pension of the petitioner has not been fixed. 5. Learned counsel for the State besides confirming payment as stated above, concedes that though departmental proceeding against the petitioner was initiated during her service period, prior to her retirement, but no specific order was passed for continuation of the proceeding after her retirement. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the State besides confirming payment as stated above, concedes that though departmental proceeding against the petitioner was initiated during her service period, prior to her retirement, but no specific order was passed for continuation of the proceeding after her retirement. 6. In the light of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the departmental proceeding cannot be deemed to continue any further after retirement of the petitioner from service. If no decision on the charges framed against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding was taken, the same cannot be now pursued after retirement of the petitioner and the respondents cannot possibly withhold payment of the retiral dues payable to the petitioner, on the ground of pendency of the proceeding due to alleged non-cooperation of the petitioner. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the concerned authorities of the respondents are directed to assess the amount of gratuity and leave encashment as well as arrears of salary to which the petitioner was entitled during the period of her suspension which was subsequently revoked, and also to fix final pension of the petitioner and ensure that all such payments are made to her together with interest @ six per cent per annum from the date of her retirement till the date of payment. This exercise must be completed within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondents.