Jharkhand High Court
Kamlesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 17 February, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3173 of 2023
Kamlesh Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of School
Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand & Others
......Respondents
........
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner :Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Zaid Imam, A.C. to S.C. VII
For the Respondent No.5:Mr. Jagdeesh, A.C. to Mr. Rupesh Singh
10/Dated: 17/02/2024
Learned counsel for the State submits that counter-affidavit is
ready but the same could not be filed as the matter was on board today.
2. The said counter-affidavit is taken on record.
3. Prayer is made in the writ petition for direction upon the
respondents to pay pension, gratuity and all other post retiral benefits along
with statutory and penal interest.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
initially appointed as Assistant Teacher at Krishnapur Middle School,
Kharsawan on 20.06.1987 and subsequently appointed qualified Bihar Sub-
ordinate Service Examination. He submits that the petitioner has already
rendered 35 years of satisfactory and unblemished service and retired from the
post of Block Education Extension Officer from Kuchai, Seraikella Kharsawan on
31.12.2022. He submits that all the formalities with regard to fixation of
pension was completed and the petitioner applied for payment of post retiral
benefit in appropriate format on 26.10.2022 and all the documents relating
to post retirement benefits were duly forwarded by the District Superintendent
of Education Seraikella Kharswan by letter dated 03.11.2022. He submits that
inspite of that in terms of government resolution within one month from the
retirement the pension ought to have been started. He submits that petitioner
has filed representation by way of Annexure-2. He submits that on 25.03.2023
it was informed that a show cause was issued against the petitioner and
allegations are made that 105 days between the period 01.12.2021 to
15.03.2022, Primary School, Kuchai was teacherless and as a result of which
students were deprived of education. He submits that reply was filed by the
petitioner stating therein that those are the period of corana related and the
amount of beneficiary was not being paid through the petitioner rather it was
being directly to the beneficiary. He further submits that after superannuation
the said show case has been issued that allegation is not before four years of
superannuation.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that in inspection report of
the Director, Mid-day-Mills, irregularities were found and pursuant to that show
cause was issued and pursuant to which departmental chargesheet has been
issued for dereliction in duty and in view of that payment is not being made.
He submits that there is notification that if the department proceeding is
pending gratuity and other benefits can be withheld. He submits that
departmental proceeding is not under challenge.
6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was initially appointed as
Assistant Teacher at Krishnapur Middle School, Kharsawan on 20.06.1987 and
subsequently qualified Bihar Sub-ordinate Service Examination and retired from
the post of Block Education Extension Officer from Kuchai, Seraikella
Kharsawan on 31.12.2022.
7. After superannuation departmental chargesheet is submitted on
15.02.2024 during pendency of the writ petition when the Coordinate Bench
has called upon the respondents to file supplementary counter-affidavit by way
of last indulgence.
8. It is an admitted position that during the service period no
departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In view of
superannuation of the petitioner as per proviso of Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension
Rules, 1950 for initiation of departmental proceeding includes some conditions
(a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government
servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment;
(b) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government;
(c) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years
before the institution of such proceedings; and
(d) shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or places as the
State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable
to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made.
9. In the case in hand so for the proviso of Rule 43(b) of Bihar
Pension Rules, is concerned, that deals with initiation of proceeding and the
limitation within which said proceeding can be initiated. These all ingredients
of Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules are not taken care of by the department
and this aspect is already set at rest in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of "State of Jharkhand Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava"
2013 12 SCC 210.
10. In view of above respondent no.2 is directed to release all the
retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner within six weeks failing which the
said retiral benefit shall be paid with interest @ 9% per annum.
11. This writ petition is disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands
disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
