JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents- State through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in Memo No.1269 dated 24.12.2011 passed by respondent No.4, whereby leave salary, gratuity and final pension of the petitioner has been withheld.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner superannuated from the post of Accountant from the office of the respondent No.4 on 31.01.2007. However, he had not received 10% of pension, full gratuity and leave salary as retiral dues besides the amount of subsistence allowance for the period from 20.01.1996 to 21.08.1996. The petitioner has been paid only the provident fund amount. Even the pension which has been fixed has not taken into consideration the last pay drawn by the petitioner and no final pension has yet been fixed.

4. Mr. Sahani categorically contended that no proceeding, whatsoever, has been initiated under Jharkhand Pension Rules. He further submits that earlier he filed a writ application being W.P.(S) No.4551 of 2008 which was disposed of by this Court directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation and further directing the State authorities to consider and decide the representation in the light of ratio given in the case of Dudhnath Pandey reported in 2007 4 JCR 1 (FB).

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made representation, however, the same was rejected and impugned letter was issued on the ground that the amount shall be paid only after disposal of criminal case pending before the competent court.

5. Mr. Sahani further referred to the guidelines dated 29.03.2010 which was issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Jharkhand instructing the offices after disposal of the case of Dudhnath Pandey.

6. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the criminal case which was filed against the petitioner was disposed of even prior to filing of the writ application and the petitioner had filed revision application which was pending before this Court at the time of filing of this application; however, the same was dismissed in the year, 2018. However, he could not brought on record a single document to show as to whether any proceeding was initiated under Rule 43 (a)/(b) or Section 139 of Jharkhand Pension Rule.

7. Lastly, he submits that since no proceeding was initiated against this petitioner, as such, the case may be remitted back to the respondents by giving liberty to initiate appropriate proceeding and pass a fresh order.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits it appears that the respondents have taken specific plea in paragraph 9 & 10 of the counter affidavit in denying the claim of the petitioner which is quoted herein below:

“9. That it is stated and submitted that in this context it is pertinent to mention here that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner for embezzlement of public money to the tune of Rs.2.64,647.56 and subsequently as per own admission from the part of delinquent before the Hon’ble High Court an amount of Rs.64,700.00 was deposited by the petitioner in installment and balance amount of Rs 1,99,947.56 is recoverable from the delinquent/petitioner.

10. That it is further stated and submitted that in the present circumstances as per provisions of Rule 85, 86 and 88 and as per notification no.9144 dt 22.8.74, 11220 dt 31.10.174 and letter no.4564 dt 6.7.93 issued by Finance Department, Govt of Jharkhand amount towards gratuity, unearned leave encashment is stopped till final disposal of the criminal case.”

9. After going through the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2007 4 JCR 1 (FB), it appears that the full Bench of this Court has considered the