Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1942 (JHR)

Khadija Farjana v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-24

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents for payment of pension and other post-retiral benefits. 2. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that on the ground of pendency of a departmental proceeding pension and other post-retiral benefits cannot be withheld. 3. In view of the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, the following order was passed on 25.07.2018: "After superannuation of the petitioner from service on 31.07.2016, a departmental proceeding by serving a charge-memo in Prapatra-K has been initiated against him on 26.03.2018. Issue notice to the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare Women and Child Development who shall file its affidavit, how a departmental proceeding after superannuation of an employee from service can be initiated and that can be a ground for withholding pension and other postretiral benefits payable to the employee [refer - " State of Jharkhand vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava , (2013) 12 SCC 210 " ]. Post the matter on 20.08.2018. Let a copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the State." 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1. It now stands clarified that a proceeding under the Pension Rules and not a regular departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. It is pleaded that a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 has been initiated against the petitioner, however, no direction for withholding her pension and other post-retiral benefits has yet been issued and if the petitioner produces No Objection Certificate, pension and other post-retiral benefits shall be paid to her [para nos.7 to 10]. 5. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to fix pension and pay other post-retiral benefits to the petitioner within six weeks of her producing NOC. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a grievance on behalf of the petitioner that inspite of repeated visits to the concerned authority NOC has not been issued to her. 7. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that if the petitioner submits an affidavit asserting that no advance or material, if any, entrusted to her has still remained in her custody, on proper verification NOC shall be issued to her within two weeks. 7. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that if the petitioner submits an affidavit asserting that no advance or material, if any, entrusted to her has still remained in her custody, on proper verification NOC shall be issued to her within two weeks. It is also clarified that on conclusion of the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 if finally it is found that the petitioner has committed gross misconduct during her service tenure, this order shall not be construed as a legal impediment to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.