In the High court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
W.P.(S) No.3098 of 2008
Ram Lakhan Shaw.............................................. Petitioner
VERSUS
Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others.. .Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S.Mazumdar
For the Respondents: Mr. A.K.Pandey
5. 8.12.08
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner retired from the services of the Respondent-Board on
30.11.1995 as Meter Reader. Thereupon all the retiral dues except
gratuity has been paid and therefore, the petitioner approached
this Court, vide W.P.(S) No.1162 of 2007 for directing the
respondent to pay gratuity to the petitioner and the same was
disposed of on 19.4.2007 directing the petitioner to file a
representation before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer,
Area Electricity Board, Dhanbad, respondent no.3, who was
directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass
appropriate order. Pursuant to that, petitioner did represent the
matter before the respondent no.3 and the respondent no.3
rejected the claim of the payment of gratuity on the ground of
pendency of a Vigilance Case. Which order was communicated to
the petitioner, vide letter no. 1507 dated 14.5.2008 as contained in
Annexure 2 and the said order has been sought to be quashed on
the ground that the authority has no jurisdiction to withhold the
pension and gratuity on the ground of pendency of Vigilance Case.
However, learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board
submits that the order as contained in Annexure 2 has been passed
2
keeping in view the decision of the Board as contained in the order
dated 6.8.1991 holding therein that the person against whom
departmental proceeding/judicial proceeding is pending, shall not
be entitled to gratuity till culmination of the case and, as such, the
impugned order cannot be said to be illegal.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, the
question falls for consideration “as to whether the Government has
got power to withhold pension and gratuity on the ground of
pendency of judicial or departmental proceeding ? This issue has
no longer remained res integra as this Court when same question
falls for consideration in a case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey
vs.State of Jharkhand & Ors. [2007(4) JCR 1 (Jhr)(FB)]
decided hereunder:
” Under Rule 43(a) and 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules,
there is no power for the Government to withhold gratuity
and pension during the pendency of the departmental
proceeding or criminal proceeding. It does not give any
power to withhold leave encashment at any stage either
prior to the proceeding or after conclusion of the
proceeding.”
In view of the settled principle, the impugned order, issued
vide letter no. 1507 dated 14.5.2008 as contained in Annexure 2 is
hereby set aside. Accordingly, respondent no.3 is directed to pay
the gratuity with statutory interest to the petitioner which the
petitioner is entitled to within a period of three weeks from today.
In the result, this application is allowed.
( R.R.Prasad, J.)
ND/