Allowed

Dineshwar Mahto And Ors. v. Education

Jharkhand HC14 Mar 2019WPC/6663/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that withholding 10% of pension and gratuity without initiating proceedings under the relevant Pension Rules is illegal. The court quashed orders recovering dues from superannuated petitioners and directed the release of withheld amounts, allowing recovery of dues through separate civil or criminal proceedings later.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed, impugned memos quashed, respondents directed to release withheld 10% gratuity and pension within six weeks, liberty granted to initiate civil or criminal proceedings for recovery.

Dineshwar Mahto And Ors. Vs Education — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6663 of 2016

¶2

----

¶3

Dineshwar Mahto

¶4

Deep Narayan Singh

¶5

Brhamdeo Sharma

¶6

… Petitioners -versus-

¶7

State of Jharkhand

¶8

Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

¶9

Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

¶10

District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih.

¶11

Treasury Officer, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih.

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

----

¶14

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

¶15

---For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha, A.C. to A.A.G. ----

¶16

6/ 14.03.2019 Petitioners, in this writ application, have prayed for quashing of Memo No. 127 dated 19.01.2016, Memo No.2636 dated 29.12.2015 and Memo No.1116 dated 09.05.2016 issued in respect of petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, by which the amount of Rs.92,522/-, Rs.1,80,371/- and Rs.1,95,112/- have been shown recoverable from the petitioners and the same has been directed to be adjusted against the pension and gratuity, as a result of which 10% pension and gratuity amount have not been paid to the petitioners.

¶17

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were Assistant Teachers and as they were Ex-Officio Secretary of the Village Education Committee. Some construction works were entrusted to them. It is alleged that an amount of Rs.92,522/-, Rs.1,80,371/- and Rs.1,95,112/were lying outstanding against the name of each of these petitioners and are recoverable from them. He submits that an exparte decision has been taken by the respondents to recover the said amount from the pension and gratuity. By the impugned order, the respondents have withheld the balance 10% of pension and gratuity on the ground that the amount, which is lying due from the petitioners should be recovered. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is no proceeding against the petitioners either departmental or civil or criminal at the time of superannuation of each of the petitioners. He submits that neither there is any proceeding under Rule 43(b) read with Rule 139 of the Jharkhand

¶18

-: 2 :-

¶19

Pension Rules. He argues that in absence of any proceedings under the aforesaid Rules, the respondents cannot withhold 10% of the gratuity and pension. He submits that royalty in respect of minerals cannot be realized from the petitioners as they were not the lessees. He further submits that the amount, which the respondents are claiming, has not yet been determined, thus, the impugned order is bad.

¶20

3. Counsel for the State submits that the amount mentioned aforesaid is lying with the petitioners, which the petitioners should have refunded. She submits that in the entire writ petition, there is not a single line to suggest that no amount is payable or recoverable from the petitioners, rather petitioners have only mentioned that amounts are to be quantified and without determination of the same, no amount can be recovered in the manner, which the respondents are seeking to recover. She submits that it means that the petitioners also admit that some amounts are lying with the petitioners and they have retained the same and have misappropriated the said amount. She lastly submits that 10% of gratuity and pension has been withheld to recover the said retained amount.

¶21

4. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioners have superannuated with effect from 30.11.2014, 31.12.2014 and 30.09.2013 respectively. Admittedly, at the time of superannuation, there were no proceedings against the petitioners. It is also admitted that no proceedings under Rule 43(b) or Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules has been initiated against the petitioner. Simply on the ground that some amount is payable by the petitioners, 10% gratuity and pension of the petitioner has been withheld. In absence of any proceedings against the petitioner, withholding 10% pensionary benefit and gratuity is illegal. The amount of pension and gratuity can be withheld in terms of Rule 43(b) read with Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. If no proceeding is initiated under the said Rules, respondents have got no authority to withhold any amount. Since, admittedly, there is no proceeding pending against the petitioners nor any proceeding has been initiated under Rule 43(b) read with Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, I find that the action of the respondents in withholding 10% pension and gratuity of the petitioner is illegal. The respondents are directed to release the 10% gratuity and pension, which has been withheld by them within 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of

¶22

-: 3 :-

¶23

a copy of this order. The impugned orders, as contained in Memo No.127 dated 19.01.2016, Memo No.2636 dated 29.12.2015 and Memo No.1116 dated 09.05.2016 issued in respect of petitioners Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively, are hereby quashed.

¶24

5. So far as recovery from the petitioners is concerned, respondents are given liberty to quantify the amount and initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioners either civil or criminal in nature, which will have no bearing so far as it relates to release of pensionary benefits of the petitioners are concerned.

¶25

6. This writ application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶26

Kumar/Cp-02

Dineshwar Mahto And Ors. v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dineshwar Mahto And Ors. v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Kumari Vs The Union Of India Represented Through Deputy Superintendent Central Industrial Security Force And

Dhanbir Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Water Resources Department

Lalit Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Shankar Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary And Ors.

Bhagwati Lalbegin Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Narendra Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.