Allowed

Murlidhar Mishra v. Human Resources Department

Jharkhand HC20 Jun 2019WPC/6629/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a recovery order of Rs. 2,21,305/- from his retiral benefits issued during pending departmental proceedings. The High Court quashed the order, directing refund based on precedents prohibiting withholding pension and gratuity pieced of departmental cases.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the recovery order dated 20.7.2011 and directed respondents to refund Rs. 2,21,305/- to the petitioner within six weeks.

Murlidhar Mishra Vs Human Resources… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 6629 of 2017

¶3

Murlidhar Mishra. … …Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶7

Regional Deputy Director of Education, Medininagar, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, District Palamau (Jharkhand).

¶8

Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, DistrictGarhwa (Jharkhand).

¶9

District Superintend of Education, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa (Jharkhand).

¶10

Block Education Extension Officer, Majhiao, At Majhiao, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District-Garhwa (Jharkhand). … …Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

¶13

For the Petitioner :Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Abhishek Sinha, S.C. VI.

¶14

¶15

06/ 20.06.2019 The petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs:-

¶16

i. For quashing the part of the office order, contained in Memo No.1028 dated 20.7.2011, issued under the signature of the District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa, whereby and whereunder a direction has been given to recover the remaining amount of Rs.2,21,305/- from the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner on the basis of measurement book.

¶17

ii. Upon quashment of the order dated 20.7.2011, direction be given to the respondents to release the amount of Rs.2,21,305/- forthwith in favour of the petitioner along with statutory interest.

¶18

The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Government Middle School, Pesaka, Miral, Garhwa on 11.11.1971. The petitioner had performed his duties assigned to him to the best of his ability and to the satisfaction of all concerned respondents-authorities. After serving to the best of his ability on various posts, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.8.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Teacher, Government Middle School, Kedar Bhawanathpur. During his service

¶19

¶20

tenure, in the year 2005, an office order, contained in Memo No. 777 dated 12.11.2005 was issued from the office of the Respondent No.5, whereby the petitioner was deputed to do certain civil works in which the petitioner was given work of construction in upgraded Primary School, Bhaisakhand; Upgraded Primary School, Karul; and Upgraded Primary School, Manjhio. The petitioner was further directed to make agreement with regard to civil works and in compliance of the said office order, the petitioner did the same and the work was started. In the meantime, when the construction work was on the verge of completion, obstruction was made by some antisocial elements for the place of schools, in question, which hampered the civil works to be done by the petitioner and, therefore, he immediately informed the matter to the Respondent No.5 vide representation dated 29.3.2006.

¶21

It is specific case of the petitioner that unfortunately the construction work could not be carried out due to obstruction made by local people and as the same was not completed within time, the petitioner was put under suspension vide office order contained in Memo No. 136 dated 18.5.2006 in contemplation of the departmental proceeding. However, no memo of charge was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation on 17.10.2006 bringing to the notice of the respondents authorities that most of the civil works are on the verge of completion and praying therein to revoke his suspension and further requested to grant him some time to complete the civil works allotted to him. In 2007 memo of charge in the form ‘Prapatra-Ka’ was served upon the petitioner vide memo no. 1430 dated 20.8.2007, informing that one Bhrigu Nath Ram, Block Education Extension Officer has been appointed as Enquiry Officer and departmental proceeding against the petitioner has been initiated. On receipt of the memo of charge, the petitioner submitted his reply. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted its report vide memo dated 10.10.2007, whereby the charge levelled against the petitioner were not found true and opined that the petitioner is not guilty of any misconduct. Thereafter the suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide office order contained in Memo No. 2058 dated 5.12.2007 with a condition

¶22

¶23

that final decision with regard to salary will be taken on completion of the departmental proceeding and further the rest amount of construction work will be deducted from the salary of the petitioner.

It is specific case of the petitioner that during pendency of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.8.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. When no final order was passed in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner made a representation before the concerned respondent on 9.8.2010, but all in vain, as no payment was made to the petitioner. The petitioner again made representation before the concerned respondent on 3.1.2011, but the same also could not yield any result for the petitioner.

¶28

It is specific case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner retired on 31.08.2009. Though the petitioner retired, respondent-authorities withheld the amount of pension and gratuity which was challenged by the petitioner by way of W.P.(S) No.1545 of 2011. This Hon’ble Court quashed the order of withholding of pension and gratuity in view of catena of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and clearly held that, in view of full Bench decision in case of “Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey vrs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in [2007 (4) JCR 1 (Jhr) (FB], during the pendency of a departmental proceeding or a criminal proceeding, the pension and gratuity of the employee cannot be withheld though a direction was given to pay the gratuity and pension. In complete definance of the Hon’ble Court’s order, the respondent again passed an order of recovery for an amount of Rs.2,21,305/- from the retiral benefits and hence this writ petition has been preferred.

¶29

Mr. Vipul Poddar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this order is in complete defiance of earlier order of this Hon’ble Court. This case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “State of Punjab & Ors. vrs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)”, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 as such a direction be given to the respondents to refund the entire amount, which has been recovered from the retiral benefits.

¶30

¶31

Per contra no counter-affidavit has been filed. However, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that as there is an allegation that the petitioner failed to perform the work assigned to him and amount of Rs.2,21,305/- became due on petitioner and as such rightly it has been recovered from retiral benefits of petitioner.

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 20.7.2011 is not tenable in the eyes of law and hence it is fit to be quashed and set aside. Earlier this Court had quashed the order of recovery from pension and gratuity in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Full Bench decision of this Court but the respondents in complete defiance of the order of this Court had passed an order of recovery which is not tenable in the eyes of law. The petitioner is admittedly a Grade III employee and amount has been recovered from retiral benefits which is not permissible in the eyes of law.

¶36

As a sequel of the aforesaid observation, guideline and judicial pronouncement, the order dated 20.7.2011 is not tenable in the eyes of law and is quashed and set aside. I direct the respondents to refund the entire amount i.e. Rs.2,21,305/- to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶37

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.

¶38

[Dr. S.N.Pathak,J.]

¶39

P.K.S.

Murlidhar Mishra v. Human Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murlidhar Mishra v. Human Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Gupta Vs Home Department

Dr Radha Kant Kunwar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary

Sumit B Binha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

Kiran Narayan Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Rural Development Department

Rup Singh Tiriya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Lal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary