ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. They had no complaint in respect of the audio and video clarity and quality.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has as prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for payment of gratuity and 10% pension to the petitioner, which have been withheld by the respondent authorities, along with penal and statutory interest.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Factory Inspector and got superannuated with effect from 30.6.2019. He submits that during course his service tenure, he was implicated in a criminal case being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 01/2006 dated 9.1.2006 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He further submits that the case is pending before the Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi. He also submits that on the pretext of pendency of the said criminal case, the respondent authorities have withheld gratuity and 10% pension of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner admits that 90% pension has been paid to the petitioner. He further submits that the respondents are taking shelter of Rule 43(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, but in the case of the petitioner, the same cannot be applied. During course of argument, the counsel for the petitioner only relies upon the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Hira Lal vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2020) 4 SCC 346. By relying upon the aforesaid judgment, he submits that the respondent authorities have acted beyond their jurisdiction to deduct 10% pension and withhold the entire gratuity of the petitioner. He further submits that Rule 43(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules cannot be made applicable so far as this petitioner is concerned.

4. Counsel for the State submits that the judgment, which the petitioner has relied upon, is of no help to him. It is submitted that admittedly the petitioner is involved in a criminal case and the trial of the same is pending. He also submits that during pendency of the trial, the petitioner is not entitled to receive balance amount of 10% of his pension and gratuity in terms of Rule 43(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. As per the respondents, Rule 43(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules is applicable so far as this petitioner is concerned and also as per the judgment dated 8.2.2019 delivered by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3004 of 2018, Laljit Prasad Sinha vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 408/2019. Rule 43(c) is prospective and the petitioner has superannuated after Rule 43(c) was promulgated, thus this Rule is applicable so far as this petitioner is concerned. He further submits that as per the said Rule, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs, as claimed by him.

5. After hearing the parties and after going through the record, I find that the petitioner superannuated from service with effect from 30.6.2019. He is an accused in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 01/2006 registered under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is still pending against him. 90% of pension has been paid to the petitioner whereas entire gratuity and 10% of pension has been withheld in view of Rule 43(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules.

6. Now the question, which falls for consideration as to whether the respondent authorities can withhold entire gratuity and 10% pension of the petitioner by invoking Rule 43(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Rule 43(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules has been incorporated in Jharkhand Service Code, 2000 by invoking Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Notification to that effect was issued by the Order of the Hon’ble Governor on 23.7.2018. Thus, by virtue of the said Notification, it can be said that the aforesaid provision is applicable with effect from 23.7.2018.

7. This Hon’ble Court in the case of W.P. (S) No. 3004 of 2018, Laljit Prasad Sinha vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, has held that R