The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that a person cannot be deprived of pension without the authority of law, which is a constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It follows that attempts of the State Government to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer in BNJ College, Sisai, Gumla. Thereafter, the petitioner was put on deputation and further transferred to Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College, Kokar, Ranchi. Thereafter, the Petitioner was appointed as a member of Jharkhand Public Service Commission. The petitioner remained in extraordinary leave without pay for 5 years and was on lien for 6 years. Thereafter, upon being relieved from Jharkhand Public Service Commission, the petitioner joined Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College. There were 6 cases against the Petitioner and out of which she has been acquitted in 3 cases and other 3 cases were pending against her and the Petitioner was released on bail. The Petitioner was suspended from the services on 03.06.2011 while she was in the judicial custody and her suspension was revoked when she was released from the services. No disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated against the Petitioner. After sometime, the Petitioner was again suspended and was asked to report at the headquarters of Ranchi University during the suspension period, where the petitioner reported. Thereafter, again the suspension of the petitioner was revoked. During the suspension period, the petitioner was paid suspension allowance for 1 year and thereafter 75 per cent suspension allowance. Thereafter, by the order of the Vice Chancelor, Ranchi University, the petitioner was made to retire under provision of Section 67 of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, in lieu of 3 months’ salary. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations for payment of gratuity, pension, leave encashment and group insurance but no heed was paid and nothing has been paid till date on ground of pendency of the criminal cases. Aggrieved by this, the writ petition was filed in order to release the pension, gratuity, group insurance and leave encashment to the petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that pensionary benefits, such as gratuity, leave encashment, and group insurance for the petitioner, cannot be withheld based only on the status of the criminal cases. It was furthermore submitted that never any disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner. The Petitioner relied upon the judgment titled State of Jharkhand and Others versus Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another.
Contentions of the State
The state submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled for other benefits as several criminal cases are pending against her. Therefore, in the public interest, the syndicate of the Ranchi University took the decision to give compulsory retirement to the petitioner. It was furthermore submitted that the process of settlement of the retiral benefits of the petitioner was undertaken and she has already been paid Rs.5,00,000/- in the head of provident fund, which was duly received by the petitioner.
Issue before the court
“whether pendency of the criminal case can be a bar for non-payment of retiral benefits, including gratuity, pension, group insurance and leave encashment.”
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that it is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the bounties, since an employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithfully and unblemished service.
It was furthermore observed that it was noted that a person's pension cannot be taken away from them without legal approval; this is a constitutional requirement found in Indian Constitution Article 300A. Hence, it is unacceptable to support any attempts by the State Government to withhold a portion of a pension, gratuity, or even leave encashment in the absence of a law provision and under the authority of administrative instruction.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey versus State of Jharkhand and Others, Deokinandan Prasad versus State of Bihar, Poonamal versus Union of India, and U.P. Raghavendra Acharya versus State of Karnataka.
Based on these considerations, the court directed that to fix the pension of the petitioner taking into consideration the 6th and 7th pay revision and thereafter fixing the benefits and pay the amount of gratuity, leave encashment and other benefits for which the petitioner is entitled for, in accordance with law.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the Petition.
Case Title: Shanti Devi V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. S. N. Pathak
Case No.: W.P.(S) No. 3987 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate Mrs. Shatakshi, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP-II, Mr. Rishab Kaushal, AC to GP-II
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
