Dismissed¶26

Rash Bihari Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Sept 2024WPC/1418/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withholding of gratuity; 90% provisional pension; salary for suspension period; Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 — Section/Rule 73 and its proviso; permission of Union Government not required for departmental proceedings; SC/ST protection precedent inapplicable; Pankaj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (2021) 20 SCC 545 distinguished; departmental proceeding pending; Jharkhand High Court, single judge (Ambuj Nath, J.); writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Rule 73 (styled elsewhere in the judgment as Section 73) of the Bihar Re-organization Act is general in nature, relating to the general service condition of employees allotted the Jharkhand cadre, and is not specific to the holding of departmental proceedings or imposing sentence on delinquent employees. ¶20

Rash Bihari Singh Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether, under the proviso to Section 73 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, the State Government was required to obtain the permission of the Union Government before withholding 10% of the petitioner's pension and gratuity. +3 more

¶19

Court's answer

¶20

Ratio / Principle

If the permission of the Union Government, as per the requirement of Section 73 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, had to be obtained in every case where an employee is proceeded against for misdeed and misconduct committed during the course of his employment, it would create mayhem in the State of Jharkhand.

¶20

Key takeaways

The Supreme Court decision in Pankaj Kumar (supra) relates to providing additional protection to members of SC & ST having regard to their social and economic backwardness, and does not relate to granting relief to a person charged with misconduct and misdeed against whom a departmental proceeding is pending; it therefore does not support the petitioner's claim.ratio¶25
In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court found no merit in the writ application and dismissed the writ petition.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi (Ambuj Nath, J.) — W.P. (S) No. 1418 of 2024, decided 09.09.2024. Retiral benefits during pending disciplinary proceeding: Petitioner, an officer of the Road Construction Department (Assistant Engineer, Patna, 1989; Jharkhand cadre after bifurcation; Executive Engineer, Road Design, Central Design Organization, Ranchi, 2004; retired 30.11.2022 while in-charge Chief Engineer-cum-Engineer-in-Chief), was suspended on 27.01.2020 with a departmental proceeding still continuing over alleged financial illegalities of 2020-2021; he was granted 90% provisional pension, his gratuity was withheld, and leave encashment was given. He sought directions for payment of gratuity and pension in place of provisional pension with interest, and salary for the suspension period, contending that under the proviso to Section 73 of the Bihar Re-organization Act the State ought to have taken Union Government permission before withholding 10% of pension and gratuity, and relying on Pankaj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, (2021) 20 SCC 545. HELD: (i) Rule/Section 73 of the Bihar Re-organization Act is general in nature, relating to general service conditions of employees allotted the Jharkhand cadre, and is not specific to holding of departmental proceedings or imposing sentence on delinquent employees; (ii) requiring Union Government permission in every case of misconduct proceedings would create mayhem in Jharkhand; (iii) Pankaj Kumar (supra) relates to additional protection of SC & ST members on account of social and economic backwardness and does not relate to granting relief to a person charged with misconduct with a departmental proceeding pending — reliance misplaced. Writ petition dismissed; pending I.A. disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 1418 of 2024

¶3

------

¶4

Rash Bihari Singh, son of Late Govind Prasad Singh, aged about 61 years, Resident of 1A, Suryoday Apartmen, West End Park, Ratu Road, Hehal P.O.-Hehal, P.S.-Pandra, DistrictRanchi … … Petitioner

¶5

-Versus -

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Project Building, P.O.Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi

¶8

... … Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : M/s. Arun, Sharda Kumari, Advocates For the Respondents : M/s. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-II

07/09.09.2024

Heard the parties

The petitioner Rash Bihari Singh has filed this Writ Petition for seeking direction upon the respondents for payment of gratuity amount and pension in place of Provisional Pension along with interest which has been arbitrarily withheld by the respondents since his retirement. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction for payment of his salary during the period of his suspension.

¶17

The petitioner joined as an Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Patna in the year 1989. After bifurcation of State of Bihar, he was allotted Jharkhand Cadre. After allotment of Jharkhand Cadre, he joined as an Executive Engineer, Road Design, Central Design Organization, Ranchi in the year 2004. The petitioner has retired on 30^th November, 2022. While the petitioner was posted as in-charge Chief Engineer-cum-Engineerin-Chief, Road Construction Department, several allegations of committing financial illegalities during the period 2020-2021 was alleged against him. Accordingly, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated and the petitioner was suspended on 27.01.2020. Departmental Proceeding is still continuing. During the pendency of the Departmental Proceeding, the petitioner has been granted 90% Provisional Pension and his Gratuity has been withheld. However, the petitioner has been given the benefit of leave encashment.

¶18

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as per the proviso of Section 73 of Bihar Re-organization Act, the State Government ought to have taken permission from the Union Government before withholding 10% of his pension and gratuity.

¶20

Rule 73 of the Bihar Re-organization Act is general in nature relating to the general service condition of the employees who were allotted Jharkhand cadre. This rule is not specific, as far as holding of Departmental Proceeding and imposing sentence against the delinquent employees is concerned. If in every case, where person is proceeded for misdeed and misconduct committed during the course of his employment and the permission of the Union Government, as per the requirement of Section 73 of Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, is to be obtained, it will create mayhem in the State of Jharkhand.

¶21

Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar versus State of Jharkhand and others reported in [ (2021) 20 SCC 545, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶22

“53. It will be highly unfair and pernicious to their interest if the benefits of reservation with privileges and benefits flowing thereof are not being protected in the State of Jharkhand after he is absorbed by virtue to Section 73 of the 2000 Act that clearly postulates not only to protect the existing service conditions but the benefit of reservation and privileges which he was enjoying on or before the appointed day i.e. 15-11-2000 in the State of Bihar not to be varied to his disadvantage after he became a member of service in the State of Jharkhand.

¶23

The collective readings of the provisions of the 2000 Act makes it apparent that such of the persons whose place of origin/domicile on or before the appointed day was of the State of Bihar now falling within the districts/regions which form a successor State i.e. the State of Jharkhand under Section 3 of the 2000 Act became ordinary resident of the State of Jharkhand, at the same time, so far as the employees who were in public employment in the State of Bihar on or before the appointed day i.e. 15-11-2000 under the 2000 Act, apart from those who are domicile of either of the district which became part of the State of Jharkhand, such of the employees who have submitted their option or employees who are junior in the cadre of their seniority as per the policy of the Government of India of which a reference has been made, either voluntarily or involuntarily call upon to serve the State of Jharkhand, their existing service conditions shall not be varied to their disadvantage and stands protected by virtue of Section 73 of the 2000 Act.”

¶24

¶25

From the bare reading of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Pankaj Kumar (Supra ), it is apparent that this case relates to providing additional protection to the members of S.C. & S.T. having regard to social & economic backwardness from which they suffer. This case does not relate to granting relief to a person who is being charged with misconduct and misdeed and against whom the Departmental Proceeding is pending.

¶26

In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this Writ application. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶27

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶28

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶29

Nandini/Uploaded

Rash Bihari Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rash Bihari Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabir Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arsalan Anzar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arvind Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Chandra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uma Shankar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Pr Secretary Deptt of Personnel Administrative Reforms

Madhabi Rajwar Vs M/S Bharat Cocking Coal Ltd. through Its Managing Director