Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1093 (JHR)

Nawal Kishore Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-24

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT By Court: The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 16.05.2012, whereby an amount of Rs.40,337/- has been recovered from the amount of gratuity which was payable to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed on 12.11.1971 and he superannuated from service on 30.06.2011. The respondent-State of Jharkhand issued a letter dated 24.08.2011, whereby a detailed calculation of the pensionary benefits of the petitioner was sent to the office of the Accountant General. In the said letter, the amount of gratuity has been mentioned as Rs.5,44,639/however, by the impugned payslip dated 16.05.2012, the amount of Rs.40,337/has been deducted from the gratuity so calculated and sanctioned by the State of Jharkhand and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed in which a plea has been taken that since the school, in which the petitioner was working, was granted permanent recognition w.e.f. 01.01.1973 and therefore, the amount of Rs.40,337/was paid in excess of the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner. 4. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State of Jharkhand has calculated and recommended the payment of legally admissible retiral dues to the petitioner by letter dated 24.08.2011 and communicated the said decision to the office of the Accountant General. Without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the amount of Rs.40,337/has been deducted from the gratuity amount so calculated by the State of Jharkhand, which could not have been done by the office of the Accountant General. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since there is a factual dispute with respect to admissibility of the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, letters including letter dated 24.07.2013 have been written to the Director (Secondary Education), Directorate of Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Ranchi and awaiting the response of the State, a final decision has not been taken. 7. 7. On a perusal of the documents on record more particularly, the letter dated 24.07.2013, it appears that after filing of the writ petition, a letter was written from the office of the Accountant General to the State of Jharkhand and a reply was also sent by letter dated 14.05.2013 to the office of the Accountant General however, as the office of the Accountant General sought further information, a letter dated 24.07.2013 was written to the Director (Secondary Education), Director, Secondary Education seeking further clarification in the matter. I am of the opinion that if any confusion with respect to the facts had occurred in the matter, the office of the Accountant General should have first sought information from the authorities and thereafter only a decision should have been taken. However, in the present case without seeking any instruction from the respondent-State of Jharkhand and without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner, an amount of Rs.40,337/- has been deducted by the office of the Accountant General from the amount of gratuity legally payable to the petitioner, which apparently is illegal. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The amount, so deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner, is directed to be paid to the petitioner however, if ultimately, it is found that the petitioner is not entitled for the said amount, after giving proper opportunity of hearing, an appropriate decision may be taken by the respondents. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petition disposed of.