Ram Lakhan Shaw vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Others

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

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got retired from the services of the Respondent Board on 30.11.199b as Meter Reader. Thereupon all the retiral dues were paid but the amount of gratuity was not paid and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court, vide W.P.(S) No. 1162 of 2007 for directing the respondent to pay gratuity to the petitioner and the same was disposed of on 19.4.2007 directing the petitioner to file a representation before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Area Electricity Board, Dhanbad, respondent No. 3, who was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate order.

Pursuant to that, petitioner did represent the matter before the respondent No. 3 but the respondent No. 3 rejected the claim of the payment of gratuity on the ground of pendency of a Vigilance Case. The said order was communicated to the petitioner, vide letter No. 1507 dated 14.5.2008 as contained in Annexure 2 which order has been sought to be quashed on the ground that the authority has no jurisdiction to withhold the pension and gratuity on the ground of pendency of a Vigilance Case.

However, learned Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board submits that the order as contained in Annexure 2 has been passed keeping in view the decision of the Board as contained in the order dated 6.8.1991 holding therein that the person against whom departmental proceeding/judicial proceeding is pending, shall not be entitled to gratuity till culmination of the case and, as such, the Impugned order cannot be said to be illegal.

Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the question falls for consideration "as to whether the Government has got power to withhold pension and gratuity on the ground of pendency of Judicial or departmental proceeding ?

This Issue has no longer remained res integra, When same question fell for consideration before this Court in a case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2007(4) JCR 1 (Jhr)(FB) it was held:

Under 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 settled principle, the impugned order, vide letter No. 1507 dated 14.5.2008 as contained in Annexure 2 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 is directed to pay the gratuity with statutory interest to the petitioner which the petitioner Is entitled to within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order.

In the result, this application is allowed.