JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order communicated vide memo no. 143(2), Ranchi, dated 23.04.2019 (Annexure-4), whereby the gratuity of the petitioner has been withheld due to pendency of criminal case i.e. Vigilance Case No. 15 of 2009 and further the commutation of pension has been disallowed until the final outcome of the said criminal case.

Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents for releasing the entire amount of gratuity and also allow the commutation of pension as per Pension Rule that existed prior to promulgation of Rule 43(c), notified vide notification dated 23.07.2018 for the reasons that petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2018 itself i.e. prior to coming into existence of the said notification.

3. As per factual matrix, the petitioner retired from post of Registrar, Department of State Ayush Medical Board, Jharkhand, Ranchi, on 31.01.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that though he performed his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty but during his service period, he was put under suspension w.e.f. 03.04.2010, vide order dated 22.04.2010, on the ground initiation of one criminal case i.e. Vigilance Case No. 15 of 2009, against the petitioner, which is still pending. However, the suspension order stood revoked vide order dated 11.06.2011. Thereafter vide order dated 28.07.2016, the respondents decided to initiate a departmental proceeding on the same charges and evidences as in the criminal case but the same was stayed by the Department vide order dated 27.11.2017 until the final outcome of the criminal case. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 31.01.2018 petitioner retired and after his retirement, the entire retiral benefits have been extended to him save and except the amount of gratuity and also petitioner was not allowed to commute the pension as per the provision of Pension Rules. The petitioner made several representations but to no effect.

4. Subsequently, the State of Jharkhand came-up with one notification dated 23.07.2018, whereby it was made clear that Rule 43(c) was brought into force with a view that gratuity amount and commutation of pension will not be allowed to the employees after retirement if there is pending criminal case/ departmental proceeding against them. Thereafter, the respondents passed an order on 23.04.2019, holding that the petitioner shall not be entitled for the benefits of gratuity and commutation of pension during the pendency of ongoing criminal case i.e. Vigilance P.S. Case No. 15 of 2009, due to coming into force a new Rule i.e. Rule 43(c).

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court.

5. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the impugned order dated 23.04.2019 is not tenable in the eyes of law as the respondent-authorities have passed the order in total contravention of the law laid down and the order dated 08.10.2020 passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 408 of 2019 (State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Laljit Prasad Sinha). Further, it has been argued that the respondents cannot withhold the pension and gratuity on the garb of Rule- 43(C) of Pension Rules, since the petitioner has superannuated prior to coming to force of the said Rule. Learned counsel further argues that the issue is now no more res-integra and the same has been settled upto the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [(2013) 12 SCC 210] and also by the Full Bench of this Court in case of Doodh Nath Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [2007 (4) JCR 1], wherein it has been categorically observed that pendency of criminal case or departmental proceeding cannot come in the way of payment of pension and gratuity to an employee. Learned counsel further submits that if a direction be given to the respondent-State to release the entire amount of pension and gratuity and pass an order to that e