Shyama Kant Jha, aged about 61 years, Son of Sri Gangadhar Jha, Resident of v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 140 of 2023 Shyama Kant Jha, aged about 61 years, Son of Sri Gangadhar Jha, Resident of Village-Khojwa, Р.О. and P.S.-Saraiyahat, District- Dumka. Petitioner … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Sector-II, Quarter No. E/305, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-7, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. - Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh. 5. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) at Doranda, P.O. and P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate : Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG --- 05/12.04.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For issuance of an appropriate Writ/s, Order/s, Direction/s commanding and directing upon the respondents to fix the full pension of the Petitioner and also to give the benefits of full gratuity to the Petitioner, since without calculating the average emoluments of the back Period the service of the Petitioner as per revision pay-scale upto 7th pay-revision, the Petitioner has been deprived with his 100% pension with gratuity against the law even after the case of the Petitioner for his reinstatement in service has been considered pursuant to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 6070 of 2009; AND Further to direct the respondents to recall the order contained in Memo No. 1056 dated 09.05.2022 being issued under signature of the Commandant, Jharkhand, Armed Police-7, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 4) and to pass a fresh order with respect to payment of full pension and gratuity to the Petitioner without any impediment since the period of service of the Petitioner from the date of his joining to date of his dismissal has been considered, though after dismissal of service, the Petitioner was not gainfully employed and accordingly is entitled for back wages and he is also entitled for the revised pay-scale with effect from 27.08.1988 till consideration of his case pertaining to reinstatement by the order of the Director, Inspector General of Police, Ranchi (Respondent No. 02).” 1 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was put under suspension with effect from 16.09.1994 and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The order of punishment was assailed before the Hon’ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 5839 of 1999(P) and after creation of the State of Jharkhand, the same was transferred to this Court and finally disposed of vide order dated 19.02.2009 by observing that the petitioner had not invoked the statutory revisional remedy provided under the Act and the respondents were directed to consider the same and also consider the issue of disproportionate punishment. 4. Thereafter, fresh order was passed as contained in Memo No. 92 dated 06.06.2009, which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 6070 of 2009. Vide order dated 20.01.2021 in W.P.(S) No. 6070 of 2009, this Court observed that the authority had not applied its mind and had just confirmed the punishment and there was no finding with regard to quantum of punishment. Consequently, the order contained in Memo No. 92 dated 06.06.2009 was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 3 with a direction to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner only on the quantum of punishment and pass fresh order. By this time, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, and therefore the entire exercise was to be completed by the appellate authority within a period of four months. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his representation before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand who considered the case of the petitioner sympathetically and order entitling the petitioner for his post-retirement benefits including the pension and gratuity was passed taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation in January 2021, and the order for payment of post-retiral benefits was passed by counting the period of service with effect from 27.08.1988 to 27.11.1998. 6.
Decision
The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the petitioner was not paid 90% pension and gratuity, though the 2 petitioner was entitled for full pension and gratuity on the basis of revised pay scale, i.e., 7th pay revision. 7. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the matter remained pending before this Court for several years, and during the intervening period the petitioner was not gainfully employed and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for his back wages including increment and other benefits of service. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been granted the post-retiral benefits, but no back wages has been granted to the petitioner for the intervening period from 27.08.1988 to 27.11.1998 on the ground of ‘no work no pay’, and the said period has been adjusted against extraordinary leave. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer an account of pendency of the case before this Court, and therefore, the respondents be also directed to grant full wages for the intervening period. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the grievance of the petitioner has been fully redressed and the petitioner has been granted the benefit of modification of order of punishment. The fact remains that the petitioner was found guilty in the departmental proceeding which has not been interfered by this Court. She submits that at the time of disposal of the writ petition, there was no direction for payment of full back wages and therefore, the order passed by this Court has been complied in letter and spirit. It is submitted that the petitioner having not worked during the intervening period, the respondents have rightly exercised their power by referring to ‘no work no pay’ principle. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner was earlier dismissed from service on account of departmental proceedings, but by virtue of the order passed by this Court, the order of punishment was modified as this Court was of the view that the point of disproportionate punishment was required to be considered by the respondents. 3 11. Admittedly, the petitioner remained out of service during the period from 27.08.1988 to 27.11.1998 and the petitioner is alleging that the matter remained pending before this Court for years together and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for full back wages. 12. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that as to what steps were taken by the petitioner for early disposal of the writ petition and further, the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6070 of 2009 in the case of the petitioner does not contain any direction for the payment of back wages for the intervening period. 13. Considering the admitted position that the petitioner did not work during the intervening period i.e. from 27.08.1988 to 27.11.1998, this Court is of the view that the respondents have rightly exercised their power in refusing to grant back wages. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to issue any further direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the respondents to give back wages to the petitioner for the aforesaid intervening period. 14. The remaining benefits having been paid, this writ petition is disposed of. 15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4