2016 Supreme(Jhk) 843
PRAMATH PATNAIK
Sitaram Sah, son of Late Govind Sah – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Suraj Prakash, J.C. to S.C. (Mines).
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- The petitioner, a retired Overseer, filed a writ application to quash an order withholding his pension, benefits, and interest due to a pending criminal case alleging misappropriation of funds after retirement (!) (!) (!) .
- The petitioner had retired in 1998 but was only partially paid his pension and G.P.F. without interest; the remaining amounts and Leave Salary were withheld following a representation that went unanswered (!) .
- The Respondent-State argued that the petitioner fraudulently misappropriated Rs. 42,04,775/- after retirement, leading to a pending criminal case (Kotwali P.S. Case No. 231 of 2002), and cited pension rules allowing withholding until the criminal case's finality (!) .
- The Respondent-State further contended that future good conduct is an implied condition of pension grants, granting the Government the right to withhold benefits if a pensioner is convicted or guilty of grave misconduct (!) .
- The Court rejected the Respondent's arguments, citing the Full Bench judgment in Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. and the Supreme Court's decision in State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jetendra Kumar Srivastava (!) (!) .
- The Court established that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in "property" under Article 300-A of the Constitution, which prohibits deprivation of property save by authority of law (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- Consequently, the Court held that the attempt to withhold pension or gratuity based solely on administrative instructions without a specific statutory provision is unconstitutional (!) .
- The impugned order dated 04.06.2014 was quashed and set aside as legally unsustainable (!) .
- The respondents were directed to release the admissible post-retirement benefits along with statutory interest within a period of 16 weeks from the date of communication of the order (!) .
- The writ petition was disposed of in accordance with the above directions (!) (!) .
ORDER :
Pramath Patnaik, J.
Heard Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suraj Prakash, learned J.C. to S.C. (Mines), appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The instant writ application has been filed for quashing the impugned order, passed by the Respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 08 of 2013, as contained in Memo. No. 130, dated 04.06.2014 (Annexure-3) and for direction upon the respondents for payment of pension, differential pensionary benefits, interest on G.P.F., Leave Salary and Gratuity already paid, medical allowance, benefits of 06th Pay Revision with interest within a specified period.
3. Sans details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Overseer in Sericulture (Industry Department) in the year 1966 and during tenure of his service, the petitioner was granted the benefits of 01st and 02nd time-bound promotion. During course of his service, no departmental or criminal proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner and on 31.01.1998, the petitioner had retired from the post of Overseer from Tasar Sub Station, Tilasut on attaining the age of superannuation. After lapse of more
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
