JUDGMENT :

The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellants. They have raised no complaint regarding audio and visual quality.

I.A. No. 5308 of 2019

2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 92 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5308 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 92 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

I.A. No. 8442 of 2019

6. This application has been filed seeking leave of this Court for filing additional grounds for appeal.

7. It is contended in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the impugned order dated 08.02.2019 having been passed that any part or portion of the pension could not have been withheld by the State authority. A show cause has been issued upon the writ petitioner under Rule 139(b) and 139(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. It is not stated that any final order has been passed in that case which has been initiated as above. It has only been stated that a show-cause notice has been served upon the writ petitioner.

8. In our view, the subsequent development is nothing to do with the scope and ambit of the preliminary proceedings as the writ petition was filed seeking a direction for payment of full pension and gratuity which were not finalized and paid to the writ petitioner despite the fact that the writ petitioner retired on 30.11.2016 i.e., nearly more than 1½ years prior to filing of the writ petition.

9. In the writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State-respondents, however, as would be clear from the impugned order that a stand was taken that as per the amended Rule 43(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, the State Government is fully competent and authorized to withhold part of the pension. A decision was taken by the learned Single Judge holding that Rule 43(c) having been amended and inducted in the Rules much after the date of superannuation/retirement of the writ petitioner, the same cannot be made applicable in this case. That apart, admittedly there was no proceeding pending under Rule 43(b) or 43(c) at that point of time when the order was being passed by the learned Single Judge and without any proceeding or without passing any order as to under what circumstances the part of pension is being withheld and what would be the quantum of the pension which is being withheld by the State, only the provisional pension was being paid and full pension was not sanctioned and there is no order to withhold any part of the pension which was admissible to the writ petitioner.

10. Though no document has been annexed along with the Interlocutory Application, but from the impugned order itself it is clear that initiation of proceedings under Rules 139 (b) and 139 (c) or show cause issued upon the writ petitioner in that proceeding are subsequent to the passing of the impugned order in which no decision has been taken as yet as would be apparent from the Interlocutory Application.

11. In such a situation and circumstances, we are of the view that the ground upon which the subsequent decision would be taken by the authority, would not be available for the State in the present proceedings as what would happen in the proceeding lies in the womb of morrow. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is dismissed.

L.P.A. No. 408 of 2019

12. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 08.02.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3004 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has directed the competent authority to take necessary steps to disburse all the retiral dues including 10 % pension of the writ petitioner to be paid within 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of t