The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6860 of 2023 S. Mustaq Khan ---- Versus ..... Petitioner 1. Union of India 2. The Director General of C.I.S.F (Central Industrial Security Force), Ministry of Home Affairs, C.I.S.F, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3. The Inspector General/W.S. C.I.S.F, (Ministry of Home Affairs), R.C.P.L, Mumbai 4. The D.I.G (Dy. Inspector General/DAE) CISF, New Delhi 5. The Commandant, CISF Unit STPP Simhadri, District-Vishakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) 6. The Group Commandant, CISF Unit Headquarter, Hyderabad 7. The Asst. Commandant, CISF Unit STPP Simhadri, District-Vishakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) 8. The State of Jharkhand … Respondents CORAM
Legal Reasoning
The petitioner earlier moved before this Court in W.P(S) No. 3390 of 2021, wherein this Court vide its order dated 29.07.2022 directed the respondent no. 4 to calculate the amount for which the petitioner is entitled for and pay the same within a period of 3 months and file specific affidavit regarding payment made to the petitioner. Pursuant to the order dated 29.07.2022, in the earlier round of litigation the petitioner has been paid Rs. 13,85,213/- towards several Heads and the provisional pension of the petitioner has been fixed and thereafter he is getting the provisional pension. 4. After payment of the aforesaid amount in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner made a 2. representation as per the direction of this Court and the same was disposed of vide impugned order; whereby the respondents have denied the petitioner, the benefit of final pension and other retiral benefits such as gratuity; leave encashment, commutation of pension etc. till finalization of the criminal case pending before the Court of C.J.M., Garhwa. 5. The stand of the respondents is that since a criminal case is pending, they are unable to make the final settlement of amount due to pendency of a criminal case. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI, assisted by Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel submits that though they have made several communications with the concerned court/office about the result of the pending case, but they could not receive the same and thereafter this Court vide its order dated 04.03.2024 had directed the State of Jharkhand by adding him as a party respondent to give the status of the said criminal case. 7. Thereafter, a counter affidavit has been filed by the newly added respondent no. 8 the State of Jharkhand, wherein it has been categorically stated that the said criminal case was disposed of by the Court of learned Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra and on earlier occasion communication was made by the learned C.J.M., Garhwa with the Deputy Collector of District Record Room, Garhwa to provide the case records, but it was found that the case record of G.R. Case No. 262/1991 is not available in the District Record Room, Garhwa. However, in paragrah-6 of the affidavit filed by the State Government, it has been categorically stated that no such permanent warrant of arrest pending against the petitioner is available on the entire record related to 3. permanent warrant of arrest in Bhawnathpur Police Station. For brevity paragraph nos. 5 & 6 are quoted hereinbelow: it is humbly stated and submitted “5. That it is humbly stated and submitted that in reply of the aforesaid letters, the office of the answering respondent received letter No.- 260/2024 dated 10.05.2024 from the learned Judge-in-charge, Civil Court, Garhwa, wherein it is mentioned that the said case has been disposed of by the court of learned Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra and on earlier occasion communication was made by the learned C.J.M. Garhwa with the Deputy Collector-cum-incharge of District Record Room Garhwa to provide the case record but it was found that case record of G.R. Case No. -262/1991 is not available in the District Record Room, Garhwa. 6. That that simultaneously, office of the answering respondent vide memo No. -501/L. Cell, dated 18.03.2024 and memo No.- 712/dated, 07.05.2024 directed the officer-in-charge of Bhawnathpur Police Station to provide the present status of Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No.- 40/1991 corresponding to G.R. Case No.-262 /1991, and in response thereto, a report vide memo No.-1202/24 dated 14.05.2024, was submitted, in which it is mentioned that contact was made with the learned court. It was informed by the court concerned that the case record is not available, however, it transpires from the letters commutated with/by the court concerned that the case was disposed of on 21.08.2001 declaring the accused absconder and permanent warrant of arrest for securing his attendance has been issued by the learned court but no such permanent warrant of arrest pending against the accused (petitioner) is available on the entire record in Bhawanathpur Police Station.” to permanent warrant of arrest related 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now there must not be any further hindrance in view of the fact
Arguments
: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- ------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Shadab Bin Haque For the State For the U.O.I Ankit Apurva, Advocates : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, A.C to G.P.-III : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, 08/08.07.2024 ------- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: a. For quashing of the order contained in memo no. 3462 dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure-15) passed in pursuance of the representation dated 23.05.2023 preferred by the petitioner in view of order dated 09.05.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3390 of 2021 issued by the respondent no. 5, whereby the respondents have denied the petitioner, the benefits of final pension and due retiral benefits than provisional pension/retiral benefits which has already been granted to him till finalization of this case pending against the petitioner before learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa. if any other b. Further, a direction upon the concerned respondent to release the following retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner: (i) Fixation of final pension; (ii) Gratuity compensation; 1 (iii) GPF medical benefits; (iv) Leave Enchashment; (v) Increments due for the year 1992, 1993 & 1994 (vi) Regularization of suspension period and salary for the said period and (vii) Benefits of 5th Pay & 6th Pay Comission. c. Further, a direction upon the respondents to make payment of the entire retiral benefits along with penal interest on the delayed payment with cost of litigation. d. For holding and declaring that the action of the respondents by denying the final pension along with other retiral benefits only on the basis of a pending criminal case illegal, arbitrary and against the law is completely 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was dismissed from service on 12.08.2011 and thereafter in appeal the order of dismissal was modified and substituted to compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary benefits vide order dated 04.11.2011. Subsequently, petitioner made several representations for payment of retiral benefits as the order of dismissal was modified, but unfortunately the same was never paid on the ground of pendency of one criminal case.
Decision
that the said criminal case is disposed of by the learned court of Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra and also the fact that there is no record indicating the petitioner as permanent offender. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid development and specific averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand specially part of Annexure-B which clearly indicates that Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No.- 40/1991 has been 4. dismissed; as such the respondent may be directed to make the balance payment forthwith. 9. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI appearing for the Respondent-Union of India submits that the said criminal case has been disposed of and has been brought to the notice of the answering respondent but the fact remains that for several years they were making regular communication, but unfortunately at no point of time it was indicated that the said criminal case was disposed of; as such now the case may be disposed of and after verifying the records they will pay the entire balance amount. 10. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand reiterated the statements made in the counter affidavit. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein, it appears that petitioner came before this Court earlier in W.P.(S) No. 3390 of 2021 when his order of dismissal was converted by the appellate authority to compulsory retirement, but he was not getting the retiral benefits. Thereafter, pursuant to the direction of this Court petitioner received Rs. 13,85,213/- towards several Heads and also his provisional pension was fixed; however, in the earlier round of litigation petitioner was directed to represent the concerned respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation and finally his claim for fixation of final pension was rejected and the petitioner was compelled to file the present writ application. It further transpires that during midst of the proceeding the State of Jharkhand was made a party because of bone of contention for non-payment of the entire balance amount was pendency of a criminal case. Thereafter, the 5. State of Jharkhand filed an affidavit indicating therein that the said criminal case was disposed of long before. The averments made in the affidavit further reveals that there was no permanent warrant of arrest is pending against this petitioner nor there is any record of said criminal case. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the only bone of contention for non-payment of gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension as well as non- fixation of final pension was the pendency of the criminal case and now the same has been clarified by the specific affidavit filed by the respondent no. 8-State of Jharkhand; the instant application, is hereby, disposed of by quashing the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 directing the respondent nos. 3 & 4 to calculate the entire amount of gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension etc. which has not been paid to the petitioner and also finalized the final pension of the petitioner by regularizing the period of suspension and pay the entire amount as early as possible and within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding interest is concerned; he may approach the concerned respondent. 13. Consequently, this writ application stands disposed of in the manner indicated herein above. (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk 6.