SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Ranjeet Kumar Rana - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 3911 of 2018
Decided On : 19-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anjani Kr. Verma.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.K. Roy, G.A.-I.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under the Jharkhand Pension Rules, any disciplinary action or show-cause notice related to alleged misconduct must be initiated within four years of the event, failing which such actions are deemed invalid.

Headnote:

[PENSION] - [WITHHOLDING OF RETIRAL DUES] - [Jharkhand Pension Rules, Rule 139, Rule 43(b)] - [The court discussed the provisions of Rule 139 and Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, emphasizing that no departmental proceedings can be initiated against a retired employee for misconduct that occurred more than four years prior to the issuance of a show-cause notice. The court highlighted that the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner was invalid as it pertained to alleged misconduct from 2006, while the notice was issued in 2018, thus violating the four-year limitation set forth in Rule 43(b). The court's interpretation of these rules underscored the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in pension-related matters, ultimately influencing the decision to quash the notice and direct the payment of withheld dues.]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a retired Junior Engineer, sought to quash a show-cause notice issued after four years of his retirement, alleging misconduct related to unsubmitted bills from 2006. He argued that the notice violated the Jharkhand Pension Rules, which prohibit action on events older than four years. The petitioner had completed 35 years of service without any pending proceedings against him at retirement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the show-cause notice issued under Rule 139 was void ab initio as it was based on alleged misconduct from 2006, which was beyond the four-year limit for initiating such proceedings as stipulated in Rule 43(b). The court emphasized that the notice did not comply with the necessary legal provisions, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to his withheld pension and gratuity.

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules was valid given that it was based on alleged misconduct that occurred more than four years prior to its issuance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the issuance of a show-cause notice under Rule 139 must comply with the time limits set forth in Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Since the alleged misconduct occurred in 2006 and the notice was issued in 2018, the court ruled that the notice was invalid and could not be enforced.

Final Decision: The court quashed the show-cause notice dated 17.07.2018 and directed the respondents to calculate and pay the withheld pension and gratuity to the petitioner within eight weeks.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

    (1) For quashing of the Memo No. 3048 dated 17.07.2018 (Annexure-14) issued by the respondent no.3 by which the petitioner, who retired on 28.02.2014, has been issued show cause notice under Rule 139 of Jharkhand Pension Rules after more than 4 years of his retirement for the so called charges of the year 2006 that during the posting of the petitioner in Dumka District, the Bills/Vouchers of the amount of Rs.23,81,151/- has not been submitted by the petitioner, however from the advances made to the petitioner almost all the construction works/schemes had been completed and 33 Measurement Books with Bills/vouchers were handed over to the concerned Assistant Engineer on 12.12.2006 itself as evident from detail representation submitted by the petitioner on 27.11.2008 (Annexure-6), but after a lapse of more than 12 years, taking the plea that the vouchers of Rs.23,81,151/- has not been submitted, on one hand entire Gratuity has been withheld and on the other hand the final pension of the petitioner has not been fixed and an amount of Rs.23,81,151/- has been shown adjusted towards the payment of due retrial dues i.e. Gratuity etc. however no proceeding has ever been initiated against the petitioner under Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules and as such withholding any amount from retrial dues is contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of State of Bihar and Others Vrs. Mohd. Idris Ansari reported in 1995 Supp(3) SCC 56 (Annexure-15) as well as by Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in case of Smt. Normi Topno Vrs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2007 (4) JLJR 466.

(ii) For direction to the respondents for payment of withheld retrial dues such as Gratuity as well as 10% due pension after fixation of final pension with penal interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of respective payment as per the settled principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vijay L. Mehrotra Vrs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 687 (Annexure-16) as well as in case of D.D. Tewari through L.R. Vrs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd reported in 2014 (6) SUPREME 382 (Annexure-17).

(iii) For grant of such other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner would be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in this application is that the petitioner joined his service on 02.02.1979 and retired on 28.2.2014 after serving 35 years from the post of Junior Engineer from the office of the Executive Engineer, Ganga Pump Canal Division, Sahebganj and no departmental proceeding/criminal proceeding was ever initiated or was pending against this petitioner till the date of his retirement; as such the petitioner, who completed the unblemished service of 30 years was entitled for 3rd M.A.C.P. w.e.f. 02.02.2009 and accordingly vide Memo No. 2437 dated 23.7.2015 issued by the Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Resp. No. 3), the petitioner was granted 3rd M.A.C.P. w.e.f. the due date i.e. 2.2.2009 in pay Band III in the scale of Rs.15600-39100/- Grade Pay 7600/-.

However, since the petitioner was deprived of payment of his retiral dues etc. even after submitting several representations to the respondents and he could not receive his legitimate dues; he preferred a writ application being W.P.S. No. 2690 of 2015 before this Court, which was heard and disposed of vide Order dated 22.9.2015 by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondent who shall decide the matter and pay the admissible dues.

4. The further fact of the case is that the Executive Engineer, Ganga Pump Canal Division, Sahebganj (Resp. No. 6) vide his Letter No. 5 dated 4.1.2016 sent the service book etc. of the petitioner to the District Account

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top