Jharkhand High Court
Umesh Prasad Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 13 June, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4546 of 2016
Umesh Prasad Sinha .... .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, SC-I
-----
At 12.30 p.m.
16/ 13.06.2022 The petitioner has not been paid the post-retiral benefits till date,
though he retired on 30.11.2016 itself, on the ground of non-issuance of Last
Pay Certificate. For last 14 years, the petitioner is running from pillar to post
for issuance of L.P.C.
On 11.05.2022, a specific order was passed by this Court and it
was directed to the respondents to explain as to how and under what
circumstances, L.P.C. has not been issued since last 14 years and for such
lethargic and lackadaisical approach, the respondents were slapped with a cost
of Rs. 50,000/-.
Even after passing of the order and taking into cognizance of the
matter, the respondents have given a deaf ear to the order of this Court.
Nothing has been brought on record that why the petitioner has been deprived
of his Constitutional right to get pensionery benefits after retirement.
Let respondent No. 3 (Chief Engineer, Rural Development,
Special Works Division, Ranchi) be physically present in the Court at 2.30 pm
sharp to explain as to why the pensionery benefits of the petitioner shall not be
extended.
Put up this case at 2.30 pm today.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the respondent No.3
through special messenger.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
R.Kr.
Later on at 2.30 pm
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents
that in compliance of the order dated 11.05.2022, a supplementary counter
affidavit has already been filed annexing the L.P.C. of the petitioner. Though
the L.P.C. was issued, but post-retiral benefits even after superannuation of the
petitioner in the year 2016, has yet not been extended.
By the order of this Court, Mr. Virendra Kumar Ram, Chief
Engineer, Rural Development, Special Works Division, Ranchi (respondent
no.3) is present in the Court physically. The Officer in a most casual manner
submits to the Court that he will look into the matter, as it is Water Recourse
Department, which is liable to pay the amount towards retiral dues.
The statement of the Officer amounts to unbecoming of a
Government servant. The order and direction of the Court cannot be taken in
a casual manner. It is the State Government, who shall take every endeavor to
make payment of the post retiral benefits, irrespective of the Department.
This Court has held in plethora of judgments that pensionery
benefits are not the bounty to be paid at the hands of the respondent
authorities, rather, it is a Constitutional right of an employee to get the same
after serving the Department for long years.
Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab State
Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd v. Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, reported in 2002 SCC OnLine SC 28, decided on
11.01.2022, has held thus:-
"The pension which is being paid to them is not a bounty and it is
for the appellant to divert the resources from where the funds can
be made available to fulfil the rights of the employees in protecting
the vested rights accrued in their favour."
On earlier occasion, this Court in the case of "Nanhe Mian Vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Others in W.P.(S) No. 2676 of 2016 has passed
order for payment of admitted dues on account of their retirement. Paragraphs-
8 to 11 of the said Judgment reads as under:-
"8. Be that as it may. Having gone through the rival submissions
of the parties and considering the fact that no decision has been
taken on the pending representation of the petitioner and also
considering the fact that large number of cases in regard to
retirement benefit matters are pending in this Court, I am
constrained to pass a general order that the concerned Government
servants or their legal heirs and representatives should raise their
claims afresh by filing representation in which they should raise
their claims afresh by filing representation in which they should
give full details of their claims and also full address for
communication henceforth before the concerned Heads of
Departments, who shall grant a receipt in token thereof. The Heads
of the respective Departments shall get the entire claim filed before
him examined through various concerned authorities including
Director, Provident Fund, District Provident Fund Officers and
finally dispose them of by a reasoned order dealing with each and
every claim separately and shall also issue necessary sanction
order/ authority slip for payment of admitted dues with statutory
interest as well as the interest as per various Government circulars/
decisions taken in that regard within a period of 16 weeks from the
date of the receipt of the claim.
9. Let it be made clear that the main responsibility for payment
of all the admitted dues of the concerned Government servant shall
be of the Heads of the concerned Departments. In case of any
dispute in regard to any of the claims, they shall assign reasons for
not accepting the same and shall communicate to the concerned
Government servant within the aforesaid time. All the formalities
such as filing of the indemnity bond or succession certificate etc.,
are to be completed by the claimant, then they must be
communicated much before the expiry of the said period so that the
claimant may meet the said requirement and the delay in payment
of the legitimate dues is avoided.
10. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, who is represented by
Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava is directed to issue necessary authority
slip within a period of one month of the receipt of the sanction
order from the concerned authority in the State Government.
11. It is also made clear that non-compliance of any part of the
aforesaid directions by any of the concerned authorities would
constitute contempt of this Court and will be seriously viewed. This
Court may also considered to award heavy penal interest and cost
besides imposition of punishment in the contempt proceeding
against the concerned Heads of the Departments/Accountant
General, Jharkhand, which shall be realised from their pocket."
Under similar circumstances, Hon'ble Patna High Court by its order/
judgment dated 27.04.2015, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10653 of 2008 in the case
of Anirudh Jha Vs. The State of Bihar and others' has considered the same and
had issued appropriate directions. Even the Rural Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand had taken decision as far back as on 25.08.2004 that
the service conditions of DRDA employees would be similar to that of the
Government employee and as such the petitioner is entitled for all retiral
benefits which is given to the State Government employees. The same has also
been reiterated by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in
C.W.P. No. 9895 of 2008, vide order dated 30.04.2009.
The question whether the pension granted to a public servant is
property attracting Article 31(1) came up for consideration before the Punjab
High Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Union of India and others
reported in AIR 1962 P&H 503 and it was held that such a right constitutes
"property" and any interference will be a breach of Article 31(1) of the
Constitution. Similar issue was raised before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Deokinandan Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in
1971(2) SCC 330 and it was held that right of the petitioner to receive pension
is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no
power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under
Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5) of Article 19.
It is a glaring example in which an employee of the State has been
harassed at the hands of the respondents. High ranking Officers sitting in air
conditioned chamber do not bother about the employees working at the lower
level. Earlier, this Court had passed a specific order that at least the admitted
dues should be paid to the employees, who have retired.
Though when a notification has already been issued by the Chief
Secretary of the State directing all the Heads of the Departments to release the
admitted dues to all the persons, who retired from the Government service, but
no heed is being paid by the Department.
This Court fails to understand that even after repeated orders for
payment of post retiral benefits, the employees are being harassed at the hands
of the high ranking officers.
Under such circumstances, the Chief Secretary of the State is directed
to look into the matter personally in the present case, and whosever is
responsible for non-payment of post retiral benefits for six years, shall be
taken heavily.
On the undertaking given by the Chief Engineer, Rural Works
Department, let the respondents take every steps to calculate the entire amount
payable towards post retiral benefits and come with the cheque of the amount,
so calculated, within a period of one week from today.
Put up this case on 20.06.2022.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the office of Chief
Secretary of Jharkhand as well as the Heads of the Department of Rural Works
Department, as also Water Resources Department.
Let a copy of this order be made available to the office of learned
Advocate General, Jharkhand, Ranchi, also for the needful.
Let the Chief Engineer, Rural Development, Special Works Division,
Ranchi be present physically in the Court on the next date of hearing.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
R.Kr.
