The pension is considered as property and cannot be withheld without the authority of law, as established in the judgments in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava.

ORDER :

I.A. No.4930 of 2021

This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay which has occurred in preferring the present appeal. However, the office has reported that in view of the order dated 27.04.2021 passed in Misc. Application No.665 of 2021 in suo motu Writ (Civil) No.03 of 2020 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the matter has to be treated to have been filed within time.

2. In the above view of the matter, no order for condonation of delay is required to be passed in the present Interlocutory Application as the appeal is being treated to be preferred within time.

3. I.A. No.4930 of 2021 stands disposed of accordingly.

L.P.A. No.280 of 2021

4. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 17.02.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1439 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed with a direction upon the respondents to release seized amount of Rs.5 lakh within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order; failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled for simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment.

5. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceedings, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

It is the case of the writ petitioner that while the writ petitioner was working Government money amounting to Rs.5 lakh in cash was looted on 05.03.2011 at Koderma by some unidentified person. A criminal case was instituted and on conclusion of investigation, the incidence of looted amount of Rs.5 lakh was found to be true having no evidence of involvement of the petitioner, however, the looted amount was never recovered.

When the looted amount remained unrecovered, the amount was running as outstanding balance against the writ petitioner in the books of account of the Government and, as such, recommendation was made by the then Regional Chief Conservator of Forest for waiving the said money as also to take decision for relinquishment of Government money as per the provision contained in Rule 62 (ii) of Jharkhand Finance Rules and accordingly the matter regarding writing off of Rs. 5 lakh was referred to the Finance Department for seeking advice and concurrence thereof. However, the Finance Department refused to do so and finally the decision has been taken on 13.03.2018 (impugned), whereby and whereunder Rs.5 lakh was directed to be recovered from the pending retiral benefits of the writ petitioner.

The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the same, preferred writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P.(S) No.1439 of 2015.

The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the amount of Rs.5 lakhs since has been recovered from the pending retiral dues without initiating any proceeding, has quashed the impugned order dated 18.03.2018 with a direction upon the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.5 lakh within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order, failing which, the refund will carry simple interest @ 6% per annum, which is the subject matter of the present intra court appeal having been filed by the State of Jharkhand.

6. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned G.A.-I appearing for the appellants-State of Jharkhand, has submitted that since there is loss of money to the tune of Rs.5 lakh from the Government Exchequer, the Finance Department has taken decision to recover the said amount from the retiral benefits, therefore, the decision of the Finance Department cannot be said to suffer from an error but the learned Single Judge without appreciating that aspect of the matter, since has interfered with the impugned order dated 13.03.2018, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustai