Allowed

Umesh Kumar Singh v. Home Department

Jharkhand HC2 Feb 2023WPC/389/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner a retired police officer sought restoration of pensionary benefits calculated on his last drawn salary after the State fixed them on a reduced pay. The Court quashed the reduction citing violation of natural justice and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; respondents directed to fix pensionary benefits on the last drawn pay and pay arrears within eight weeks.

Umesh Kumar Singh Vs Home Department — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 389 of 2015 Umesh Kumar Singh …. …. Petitioner Versus

¶3

State of Jharkhand

¶4

Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi.

¶5

Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Ranchi.

¶6

Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Ranchi.

¶7

Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶8

Commandant cum Director, Jharkhand Armed Police, Jamshepdur. 7. Deputy Secretary, Department of Finance, Personal Claim Settlement Cell, Ranchi.

¶9

…. …. Respondents

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Pradip Nath Roy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pragati Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Navneet Toppo, AC to GP-I For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate

¶13

¶14

10 / 02.02.2023 Heard the parties.

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for a direction upon the respondents to restore the pensionery benefits in the last pay drawn at the time of retirement i.e. Rs. 31,530. The petitioner has also prayed for MACP benefits.

¶16

Briefly stated the fact, the petitioner was appointed on 21.7.1980 as Sub-Inspector of Police. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Inspector on 1.4.1990 and further to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 22.7.2008. On attaining the age of 50 years, the petitioner requested the authority to exempt him from appearing in the departmental examination in light of Circular No. 1925 dated 21.6.1978. However, the respondents sat tight over the matter and no decision was taken and he retired on 30.11.2012 in the basic pay of Rs. 31,530/- plus usual allowance. It is specific case of the petitioner that surprisingly, his pension was fixed at Rs. 28000/-. The petitioner after retirement again submitted his representation to fix the pension and other pensionery benefits at Rs. 31,530/- i.e. the last pay drawn by him. However, when no heed was being paid, the petitioner was constrained to knock the door of this Court.

¶17

Mr. Pandey Pradip Nath Roy, learned senior counsel assisted

¶18

¶19

by Ms. Pragati Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not open for the respondents to reduce the pay of the petitioner for fixation of pension after retirement. Learned senior counsel submits that before reducing the pay, even the petitioner was not put to notice. He further argues that plea of reducing the pay as per averments in the counter affidavit that the petitioner does not fulfil the criteria for exemption from passing the departmental examination is not tenable in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the petitioner had duly represented before the authorities after completion of 50 years of age and it was the respondents, who sat tight over the matter and no decision was taken thereon. Based on these contentions, learned senior counsel argues that the petitioner is fully entitled for increment on being exempted for departmental examination and rightly he is entitled for pension on the pay last drawn i.e. Rs. 31.530/-.

¶20

Controverting the stand of the learned senior counsel, Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned AC to GP-I, representing the respondent-State submits that the respondent-State is fully justified in reducing the pay of the petitioner because the petitioner has not cleared the departmental examination and he was never given exemption from appearing in the departmental examination, as he does not fulfil the criteria for such exemption. To fortify this contention, learned counsel refers some of the paragraphs of the counter affidavit.

¶21

Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the office of Accountant General, Jharkhand submits that admittedly the petitioner was not put to notice before reduction of his pay. Pensionery benefits were fixed on the recommendation of the State and he has no objection, if any fresh recommendation is received from the State.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar and having gone through the records, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and the last pay drawn by him was Rs. 31530. The respondent-State has to fix the pension taking into consideration the last pay drawn, but instead thereof, pension was fixed by reducing the same. Law is well settled that after retirement, no adverse order can be passed that too without issuing any notice or without initiation of any departmental proceeding.

¶23

¶24

Admittedly, no step was ever taken by the respondents before reducing the pay. The only plea of the respondents is that the petitioner has not cleared the departmental examination and no exemption was given in his favour. The contention of learned counsel for the State is misconceived, as it appears from perusal of the records and the documents brought on record that the petitioner made an application for exemption on completion of 50 years as per rules governing his service conditions. The respondent-State sat tight over the matter. It was incumbent upon the respondents to pass order on the exemption application in either way. The plea of not appearing in the departmental examination cannot be taken after retirement. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is not claiming any financial up gradation. The petitioner has only objected curtailment of the amount for the purpose of pensionery benefits. In plethora of judgments, it has been held that any order visiting with civil consequence, the provisions of natural justice is attracted. No curtailment would have been done in the pensionery benefits without adhering to the cardinal principles of natural justice. The respondents while reducing basic pay have not adhered with the principles of natural justice and on that count, the act of the respondent-State is deprecated by this Court. Accordingly, this Court hold that the petitioner is entitled for pensionery benefits to be fixed as per the last pay drawn by him i.e. Rs. 31530 plus usual allowances.

¶25

At this stage, learned senior counsel fairly submits that the petitioner has already received the MACP benefits and as such, he is not pressing the same.

¶26

As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, regulations, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, this writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the pensionery benefits of the petitioner as per last pay drawn by him and to pay the differences of arrears of pensionery benefits. Let these exercise be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.

¶27

This writ petition stands allowed.

¶28

R.Kr.

Umesh Kumar Singh v. Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Kumar Singh v. Home Department

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

Chhabi Murmo Vs Collectariate

Darogi Singh Vs Chief Secretory

Basanti Rani Vs Social Welfare Women and Child Development Dept

Sawarni Devi Vs Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization through Its Regional Commissioner and Ors.

Raj Kumar Mahali and Ors. Vs the Damodar Valley Corporation through Its Chairman and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Goswami Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.