Janeshwar Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

R.R. Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the State.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner working as ''Assistant Engineer (Mechanical),'' Irrigation Sub Division, Nala, Jamtara, got retired on 31st January, 2009. After more than a year, a letter was issued by the Deputy Secretary (Management) to the Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi, intimating therein that the government has taken decision to sanction pension (not the gratuity) provisionally to the extent of 100%. Being aggrieved with that order as contained in Memo No. 588 dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure-9), the petitioner has moved this Court challenging the order to be bad in view of the Full Bench decision rendered in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2007 (4) J.C.R. 1 (Jhr) (F.B.).

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though under Annexure-9, no reason has been assigned as to why the amount of gratuity to be paid to the petitioner has been withdrawn. But in the counter affidavit, it has been stated that as two cases are pending against the petitioner, Gratuity is being withheld. Learned Counsel in this respect submits that in those cases, the petitioner was the informant and, therefore, it is wrong on the part of the respondent to say that the petitioner is an accused in that cases. That apart even if the petitioner is an accused in some criminal cases, that could not be a ground for not granting gratuity in view of the decision rendered in a case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra).

In the said case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra), one of the questions as given below fell for consideration before their Lordships:

(i) Whether the government has got power to withhold pension, gratuity and leave encashment amount on the ground of pendency of judicial or departmental proceeding?

Their Lordships after taking into account the relevant provisions of law as well as other factors did hold as follows:

Rule 43(a) and 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, there is no power for the Government to withhold gratuity and pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding. It does not give any power to withhold leave encashment at any stage either prior to the proceeding or after conclusion of the proceeding.

In view of the decision rendered in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra), the respondent does not have authority to withhold amount of gratuity to be paid to the petitioner in view of the pendency of the criminal case.

Accordingly, order, so far it relates to withholding of the gratuity, as contained in Memo No. 588 dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure-9) is, hereby, quashed.

Consequently, the Authorities are directed to pass order with respect to payment of the gratuity and interest on it in terms of the Circular No. PC-2-1-46/79/3155 dated 07.11.1981 as contained as Annexure-11. The decision be taken in the matter of payment of gratuity with interest, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order so that payment be made immediately thereafter.