The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 606 of 2021 ---------- Rajeev Kumar, son of Dr. Jaideo Mandal, resident of Shubham Savera Sadan, Arsande, near Krishi Bihar Colony, P.O. Boreya, P.S. Kanke, Dist. Ranchi. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/ Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative Department, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Town and Dist. Ranchi. 2. Director, Agriculture, Department of Agriculture Animal Husbandry and Cooperative Department, Krishi Bhawan, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke Road, P.S. Gonda, Dist. Ranchi. 3. Under Secretary to Government, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Town and Dist. Ranchi. 4. Joint Cane Commissioner, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Krishi Bhawan, Kanke, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, Town and Dist. Ranchi. 5. Principal Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Town and Dist. Ranchi. 6. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Specialized Personal Banking Branch, Kanke Road, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, Dist. Ranchi. 7. Branch Manager, Bank of India, Arsandey Branch, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, Dist. Ranchi. ………. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioner : : : For the State For the R. No. 5 : For the R. No. 6 : For the R. No. 7 :
Legal Reasoning
----------- Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Vishnu Kr. Mahto, Advocate Mr. Priyadarshi, GP-VI Mr. Arvind Kr. Mehta, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rahul Anand, Advocate ---------- 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to release the pensionary benefits including the amount of GPF and Gratuity. 3. Petitioner retired from the post of Joint Cane Commissioner, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative Department, Govt. of 1 Jharkhand, Ranchi on 31.03.2020. It is the specific case of petitioner that after his retirement only GPF and GIS was paid to the petitioner. Apart from this not a single farthings has been paid to the petitioner under the head of pensionary benefits. Petitioner has approached the respondent-authorities by filing representation but no heed was paid to the said representation and as such, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously argues that petitioner is entitled for 100% pension, GPF, Gratuity and other retiral benefits. It has been very fairly submitted that though GPF and Gratuity has already been paid but 100% pension has not yet been released. Learned counsel further argues that even the bank accounts of the petitioner operating with Bank of India and State Bank of India was freezed by the Treasury Officer. Learned counsel further argues that an Interlocutory Application has been filed for de-freezing the accounts of the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that a direction be given to the respondents to de-freeze the accounts of the petitioner and to pay the pensionary benefits thereafter. 5. On earlier occasion, the matter was heard at length. Pursuant to order dated 06.08.2024, this Court directed the Treasury Officer to remain physically present on the next date of hearing and in compliance of the same, Ms. Sarika Bhagat, Treasury Officer, Ranchi along with Mr. Raj Kumar, Assistant, Treasury Office, Ranchi is present before the Court. 6. Mr. Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the respondent-State argues that though accounts of the petitioner was freezed earlier but after order of this Court the same has been de-freezed and active measures have been taken to release the pensionary benefits and the same will be done soon. Learned counsel submits that the present Treasury Officer has joined the post in the month of February, 2024 only but inadvertently, the said matter was not within her knowledge and as such steps were not taken for payment of retiral benefits. However, after order of this Court when she came to know about the same, active consideration has been made and appropriate steps have been taken for releasing the pensionary benefits and for defreezing of the accounts. 2 7. Ms. Sarika Gupta, Treasury Officer, Ranchi who is physically present in the Court, very fairly submits that the moment she came to know about freezing of the accounts by which the pensionary benefits could not be paid to the petitioner, immediate steps were taken and it was found that even PPO is missing. Thereafter, immediately Sanha was lodged at the nearest Police Station. She further submits that since accounts of the petitioner have already been de-freezed vide letter dated 26.07.2024, the entire pensionary benefits shall be paid to the petitioner. It has been brought to the knowledge of the Court that there is recommendation for release of 90% of the pension from the office of the Accountant General and as such, the Treasury Officer has also recommended for release of the 90% pension. 8. Having heard the parties at length, this Court is of the view that due to lethargic and lackadaisical approach of the respondent-authorities, the pensionary benefits were not paid to the petitioner for three long years. There was a recommendation of the State Govt. to pay 90% of the pension but even after such recommendation due to freezing of the accounts, the petitioner had not received the admitted amount of pension. However, after intervention of the Court and when the Treasury Officer was directed to remain physically present in the Court, steps were taken for de-freezing the accounts of the petitioner and undertaking has been given by the Treasury Officer to release the 90% pension to the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that due to pendency of the criminal proceeding 10% pension has been withheld. 10. However, nothing has been brought on record to show as to which proceeding is pending and whether the same was initiated after retirement or any proceeding has been initiated under Rule-43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. However, since the petitioner has also failed to bring on record the minutes of the proceeding, this Court is not passing any order in that regard. Rather, the Court feels that it would be appropriate to direct the Treasury Officer, Ranchi to release the entire pensionary benefits by passing a suitable order and direction to the respondent-Bank within a period of 48 hours. Since due to laches on the part of the respondents, the time payment 3 of pensionary benefits has been delayed, petitioner is also entitled for 6% statutory interest on the pensionary benefits. 11. The entire amount shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. If any hurdle or obstacle is raised in payment of pensionary benefits and the same is not paid within a period of 48 hours, it is open for the petitioner to bring the same to the notice of the Court and thereafter, a suo motu contempt proceeding shall be initiated against the erring Officials. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition
Decision
stands disposed of. I.A. No. 10757 of 2023 also stands disposed of. 13. However, petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application challenging the order of deduction from the retiral benefits. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 4