Jharkhand High Court
Sheo Yatna Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2876 of 2019
------
Sheo Yatna Prasad ...Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Water Resource Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi
2. Joint Secretary (Management), Water Resource Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Secretary (Management) Water Resource Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Doranda Ranchi.
4. Accountant General, Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi
5. The District Treasury Officer, Deoghar, Jharkhand ... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Rohan Kashyap, AC to GA II
For the Respondent No. 4: Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Advocate
05/30.06.2021: Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that entire retiral
benefits has been paid to the petitioner but the respondents have withheld 25 per
cent of the gratuity amount in terms of Rule 43 (C) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that there is a vigilance
case against the petitioner being Vigilance Case No. 04 of 1997 which is still
pending. He submits that in view of the Rule 43 (C) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule
25 percent of the gratuity has been withheld.
In reply the counsel for the petitioner submits that withholding 25 percent of
gratuity, taking shelter of Rule 43 (C) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule is absolutely
illegal as the amendment in Rule 43 (C) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule takes
effect from 2018 whereas the petitioner superannuated from service in the year
2009. He submits that there cannot be any retrospective effect to the Rule 43 (C)
of the Jharkhand Pension Rule as held by this Court in the case of Laljit Prasad
Sinha versus State of Jharkhand and others passed in W.P. (S) No. 3004 of
2018. He submits that this case squarely covers the present case.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.
The main dispute is in respect of withholding of 25 per cent of the gratuity.
The State admittedly has withheld 25 per cent of the gratuity in view of the newly
incorporated Rule 43 (C) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule. Admittedly, this rule
came into effect from 2018. Admittedly, the petitioner superannuated on
31.07.2009.
Whether any deduction can be made from the gratuity of an employee who
has superannuated prior to coming into effect of Rule 43 (C) of the Jharkhand
Pension Rule fell for consideration before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3004 of 2018,
and this Court in a detailed judgment dated 08.02.2019 has held that Rule 43 (C)
of the Jharkhand Pension Rule cannot be given retrospective effect and employee
who have been superannuated prior to coming into force of Rule 43 (C) of the
Jharkhand Pension Rule are entitled for full pension and Rule 43 (C) of the
Jharkhand Pension Rule cannot be made applicable to them to that effect. This
case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment since the petitioner has
superannuated in the year 2009 which is prior to coming into effect of Rule 43 (C)
of the Jharkhand Pension Rule.
Considering the aforesaid fact and judgment which cover this case, I hold
that withholding of 25 per cent from gratuity of the petitioner is not proper. The
petitioner is entitled for Twenty Five per cent of gratuity which has been withheld
by the respondent.
I direct the respondent to disburse the amount of Twenty Five per cent
gratuity immediately within four weeks from today.
This application is thus allowed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Rajnish
