Jharkhand High Court
Chandra Narayan Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 5850 of 2014
1. Chandra Narayan Yadav, son of Late Parmeshwar Yadav, resident
of Krishna Puri, Road No: 1, Railway Colony, P.O.-Chutia, P.S.-
Chutia, District-Ranchi.
2. Punam Prasad, wife of Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, resident of
Shivpur, Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.O.-Kanke, P.S.-Gonda, District -
Ranchi.
3. Imrentiana Toppo, wife of Victor Toppo, Dhawan Nagar, Gandhi
Nagar, P.O.-Gandhi Nagar, P.S.-Gonda, District-Ranchi.
4. Khalil Ahmad, son of Late Abdul Wahid, resident of Lac Factory
Road, Hindpiri, P.O.-Ranchi, P.S.-Hindpiri, District-Ranchi.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Project
Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2. District Education Officer, Ranchi, P.O.-Court Compound, Ranchi,
P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
3. Accountant General, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District-
Ranchi. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
10/09.06.2022
1. Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. K. K. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Respondent-State.
3. Heard Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent No.-3.
4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) commanding upon the
respondents to pay and release the amount deducted from
their respective retiral benefits on the alleged adjustment
so made arbitrarily in violation of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court and followed by this Hon'ble Court and to
pay the interest, both statutory and penal, @ 10% per
annum from the date of such deduction till the date of
actual payment thereof; And/Or for issuance of any such
Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case and for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner
Nos.1 to 4 being teachers have retired on 30.09.2013, 31.07.2013,
29.02.2013 and 31.01.2013 respectively and their pension was
provisionally fixed vide orders as contained in Annexures 1 to 4 to the
writ petition respectively. The learned counsel submits that at the time
of provisional fixation of pension the amount was deducted with
respect to all the petitioners whose details have been mentioned in a
tabular form, which is as below: -
Petitioner Number Deduction of the Amount
1 80,662.00
2 1,55,878.00
3 1,24,468.00
4 71,313.00
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it has been
specifically stated by the petitioners that no notice was ever issued to
the petitioners before deducting the amount. The learned counsel has
also submitted that it is the specific case of the petitioners that there is
no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners. He
submits that final fixation of pension/gratuity is yet to be done and in
the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Pubjab & Others vs. Rafiq Masih & Others reported
in (2015) 4 SCC 334, no deduction can be made from the
pension/gratuity of the petitioners in case of wrong fixation of pay, if
any. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the deduction which
has been made from the provisional pension/gratuity of the petitioner
is illegal.
7. At this, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per
Annexures 1 to 4, only provisional pension has been fixed and
aforesaid aspects of the matters can be considered by the respondent
No.-2 at the time of fixation of final pension. He also submits that it is
not in dispute that no notice was issued to the petitioners prior to the
deduction of amount from the retiral benefits of the petitioners while
provisionally fixing the pension/gratuity. The learned counsel submits
that if ultimately it is found that the pay was wrongly fixed, then it
will have effect for future pension of the petitioners and so far as the
deduction from the pension is concerned, the aforesaid judgment
relied upon by the petitioners can be taken care of by the respondents
No.-2 and speaking order can be passed.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute
that the deduction has been directed from the petitioners at the time of
fixation of provisional pension/gratuity as contained in Annexures 1 to
4 of the writ petition with respect to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4
respectively and apparently final pension has not yet been fixed. It is
further not in dispute that no hearing has been given to the petitioners
prior to the aforesaid deductions from provisional pension/gratuity.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ
petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to appear before
the respondent No.-2 on 12th July, 2022 at 10:30 a.m by filing a
representation raising objection to the deductions made from the
provisional pension/gratuity along with a copy of the writ record, a
copy of this order and a copy of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 (supra) and any other
judgment or circular or guidelines of the Government as the
petitioners may seek to rely upon.
10. After filing of such representation, the respondent No.-2 is
directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/their
authorized representative and pass a reasoned order within a period of
3 months from the date of filing of such representation in connection
with the final fixation of the pension/gratuity of the petitioners. The
deductions or otherwise will ultimately depend upon the outcome of
the decision to be taken by the respondent No.-2. It is observed that if
any excess payment is found to have been paid to the petitioners, then
the respondent No.-2 shall also consider the aforesaid judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of recovery of the
excess amount.
11. The reasoned order should also be communicated to each of the
petitioners through speed-post at their respective address which may
be provided by the petitioners in the representation itself.
12. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid
observation and direction.
13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
