Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 308 (JHR)

Shiv Chand Ravi v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-09

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2016
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. The instant writ petition has been filed commanding upon the respondents to release the pensionary benefits i.e. gratuity, leave encashment, increment and family pension along with arrears of salary for the period from 13.11.2003 to 21.12.2006, during which the petitioner was put under suspension. 2. In compliance of order dated 07.10.2014 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4929 of 2013, by which, the counsel for the State was directed to seek instruction on the plea of petitioner that respondents cannot withhold the amount of pension, gratuity and leave encashment simply on account of pendency of criminal case, in view of Full Bench Judgment of this Court, in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand, as reported in 2007 (4) JCR 1(Jhr.) [: 2013(3) JLJR 655 ](FB), the respondents have filed supplementary counter affidavit dated 01.12.2014, wherein, it has been inter alia, submitted that petitioner has not filed any application for payment of pension, leave encashment or any dues before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Godda. However, it is averred that if the petitioner applies for the same in proper format, it could be paid as per rule and regulation. It has further been contended in the supplementary counter affidavit that so far as arrears of pay during the suspension period is concerned, the same is subject to payment after disposal of Complaint case being C.P. Case No. 55 of 2003, which is pending against the petitioner. So far as gratuity is concerned, it is stated that the same is not payable unless and until final order is passed in C.P. Case No. 55 of 2003 in view of Finance Department Memo dated 22.08.1974. 3. The main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents cannot withhold the amount of pension, gratuity and leave encashment simply on account of pendency of criminal case, in view of Full Bench Judgment of this Court, in the case of Dr. DudhNathPandey (Supra), and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, reported in 2013(3) JLJR (SC)537. 4. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to file fresh paper in proper format for pension and other retiral benefits. 5. DudhNathPandey (Supra), and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, reported in 2013(3) JLJR (SC)537. 4. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to file fresh paper in proper format for pension and other retiral benefits. 5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, without delving into the intricacies of law, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation along with all relevant papers in proper format along with copy of this order before respondent no. 2/appropriate authority, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, who, in turn, shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner taking into account the law laid down in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra)and relevant provisions of Pension Rules and Service Code and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is needless to mention here that if the claim of the petitioner is found to be genuine and petitioner is entitled to legally admissible retiral dues, the same shall be paid within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.