Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Umesh Kumar Singh on 5 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A. No. 366 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Project Bhawan, P.O. &
P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.
3. Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi
4. Commandant cum Director, Jharkhand Armed Police, Jamshedpur, P.O. &
P.S.-Jamshedpur, District -East Singhbhum. .... Appellants
Versus
1. Umesh Kumar Singh, son of late Rup Narayan Singh, resident of Bajitpur
Niwas St. Mary School Campus, Mohalla-Sikandarpur, P.O. & P.S.-
Muzaffarpur, District- Mazaffarpur, Bihar. ... Respondent
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Project Bhawan, P.O. &
P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.
3. Deputy Secretary, Department of Finance, Personnel Claim Settlement
Cell, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.
4. Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District-
Ranchi. ... Performa Respondents
---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
For the Appellants : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC-III
For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Kavita Kumari, Advocate
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate
---------------
5th February 2024
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.
This interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of
the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 124 days in filing the
present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has vehemently
opposed this interlocutory application.
3. In view of the statements made in this interlocutory application,
the delay of 124 days in filing this appeal is condoned.
4. I.A. No. 10812 of 2023 is, accordingly, allowed.
5. The State of Jharkhand has challenged the writ Court's order
dated 2nd February 2023 passed in WP(S) No.389 of 2015.
6. The only ground on which the present Letters Patent Appeal is
premised is that the respondent no.1 did not pass the departmental accounts
examination nor was he granted exemption by the competent authority and
while so, he was not entitled for annual increment.
7. Before the writ Court, the State of Jharkhand pleaded that on
account of lapses on the part of the dealing officer the respondent no.1 was
allowed three annual increments. Later, the Department of Finance vide
memo dated 21st July 2014 indicated the discrepancy in the pay-slip of the
respondent no.1 and accordingly his pension was fixed taking Rs.28,000/- as
the last pay drawn by him.
8. The respondent no.1 pleaded that he was appointed on 21st July
1980 to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and in course of the service he
was made Inspector of Police and then Deputy Superintendent of Police.
The case set up by the respondent no.1 before the writ Court was that on
attaining the age of 50 years he made an application for exemption in terms
of Circular No.1925 dated 21st June 1978 but no decision was taken by the
competent authority thereon and, in the meantime, he superannuated from
service w.e.f. 30th November 2012. This is not in dispute that the respondent
no.1 was given the MACP benefits and on the date of his superannuation the
respondent no.1 was drawing pay of Rs.31,530/- with usual allowances.
However, as noticed above, his pension was fixed taking Rs.28,000/- as the
last pay drawn by him. The writ Court dealt with the rival stand in the
following manner:
"7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar and having
gone through the records, this Court is of the considered view that the case of
the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted to
the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and the last pay drawn by him
was Rs. 31530. The respondent-State has to fix the pension taking into
consideration the last pay drawn, but instead thereof, pension was fixed by
reducing the same. Law is well settled that after retirement, no adverse order
can be passed that too without issuing any notice or without initiation of any
departmental proceeding. Admittedly, no step was ever taken by the
respondents before reducing the pay. The only plea of the respondents is that
the petitioner has not cleared the departmental examination and no exemption
was given in his favour. The contention of learned counsel for the State is
misconceived, as it appears from perusal of the records and the documents
brought on record that the petitioner made an application for exemption on
completion of 50 years as per rules governing his service conditions. The
respondent-State sat tight over the matter. It was incumbent upon the
respondents to pass order on the exemption application in either way. The
plea of not appearing in the departmental examination cannot be taken after
retirement. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is not claiming any
financial up gradation. The petitioner has only objected curtailment of the
amount for the purpose of pensionery benefits. In plethora of judgments, it
has been held that any order visiting with civil consequence, the provisions of
natural justice is attracted. No curtailment would have been done in the
pensionery benefits without adhering to the cardinal principles of natural
justice. The respondents while reducing basic pay have not adhered with the
principles of natural justice and on that count, the act of the respondent-State
is deprecated by this Court. Accordingly, this Court hold that the petitioner is
entitled for pensionery benefits to be fixed as per the last pay drawn by him
i.e. Rs. 31530 plus usual allowances."
9. It would appear from the pleadings before the writ Court that
the State of Jharkhand could not demonstrate that the departmental accounts
examinations were held periodically. Under the Circular dated 21st June
1978, a government employee on attaining the age of 50 years becomes
entitled for exemption from passing the departmental examination if he was
on official duty or had appeared in the examination but failed. This is also a
matter of record that the respondent no.1 was allowed three annual
increments and he was drawing Rs.31,530/- in salary on the date of his
superannuation from service. This is also not in dispute that a government
employee is required to pass departmental accounts examination to be
eligible for MACP benefits. Now, from these facts this must be inferred that
it was the understanding of the department that the respondent no.1 was
entitled for exemption in terms of Circular dated 21st June 1978, inasmuch
as, he has been granted MACP benefits. This is also not in dispute that
before fixing the last pay drawn by the respondent no.1 at Rs.28,000/-, after
deducting the three annual increments paid to him, he was not issued any
notice.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find no ground to interfere
with the writ Court's decision and, accordingly, L.P.A. No. 366 of 2023 is
dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
R.K.
