Jharkhand High Court
Ranchi University Through Its ... vs Shanti Devi on 25 August, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:25056-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 482 of 2024
Ranchi University through its Registrar, Binod Narayan, aged about 59
years, Son of Late Deonandan Prasad, Resident of Devi Mandap Road,
Near SBI Officer's Colony, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar & District-
Ranchi having its Office at University Campus, P.O. G.P.O. & P.S.
Kotwali, District-Ranchi ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Shanti Devi, aged about 68 years, w/o Late Mahendra Ram, resident
of village-Lowadih, P.O. Namkum, P.S. Namkum, District-Ranchi at
present resident of Magistrate Colony, Near Survey of India Gate, P.O
Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi
2. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department
of Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development, having its
Officer at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.
3. The Director, Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand, having its
Office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Higher Technical Education
and Skill Development, having its Office at Nepal House. P.O. & P.S.
Doranda District-Ranchi.
5. The Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University Ranchi having its Office at
University Campus, P.O. G.P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellant : Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate
For Resp. No.1 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate
For the State : Md. Z.A. Khan, A.C. to S.C.-VII
---------
C.A.V. On: 20.08.2025 Pronounced On: 25.08.2025
Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned writ Court, the
appellant has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was
appointed as a lecturer in Hindi subject in B.N.J. College, Sisai,
Gumla on 01.11.1984 for a period of one year temporarily and it was
stated in the appointment letter that her services could be terminated
any time without giving reasons during this period. Pursuant to the
-1 of 7-
2025:JHHC:25056-DB
appointment letter, the respondent No. 1 joined the college on
07.01.1985.
4. On 08.02.2002, the respondent No. 1 was transferred to Ram
Lakhan Singh Yadav College, (hereinafter to be referred as 'R.L.S.Y.'
College) Kokar, Ranchi initially on deputation, whereby in addition to
teaching, she was also required to perform duties at Tabulation
Centre for which she was not to be granted duty leave. The
respondent No. 1 joined the said college on 16.02.2002.
5. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 on 07.11.2003 was appointed
as a member of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and took
charge on the same date.
6. Respondent No. 1 was granted extraordinary leave without pay
for 5 years vide Memo dated 28.02.2004.
7. Vide Memo dated 03.03.2005, respondent No. 1 was
provisionally absorbed in the service of Ranchi University under
Section 4 (14) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000.
8. On 06.04.2009, while the respondent No. 1 was on deputation
in 'R.L.S.Y. College, she was granted leave with lien (without pay)
from 08.11.2008 to 07.11.2009, pursuant to meeting held by the
Ranchi University dated 23.12.2008.
9. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 again joined back at the
'R.L.S.Y.' College on 07.11.2009 after being relieved by the
Jharkhand Public Service Commission.
10. Thereafter vide Memo dated 12.03.2010 the respondent No. 1
was transferred to 'R.L.S.Y.' College, Kokar, Ranchi instead of
deputation with effect from 07.11.2009.
-2 of 7-
2025:JHHC:25056-DB
11. On 02.06.2011, respondent No. 1 was arrested by the
Vigilance Department and sent to jail.
12. Thereafter on 03.06.2011, respondent No. 1 was suspended
from her service.
13. On 22.05.2015, the appellant-University requested for fixation
of pay and revision of pay in accordance with 6th Pay Revision in
favour of respondent No.1.
14. On 30.01.2014, respondent No. 1 joined the 'R.L.S.Y.' College,
after grant of bail and thereafter, regularly performed her duties with
effect from 30.01.2014 to 03.03.2015 in the said college. During this
period, the suspension of respondent No. 1 also came to be revoked
vide order dated 14.03.2014 with effect from 30.01.2014.
15. However, on 04.03.2015, the appellant-University again
suspended respondent No. 1 on the pretext of pending criminal
proceeding against her, which involved moral turpitude and ordered
her to report at the Headquarter of the Ranchi University.
16. Due to the serious nature of the allegations, the appellant-
University on 18.12.2018 arrived at a decision to grant compulsory
retirement to respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 67 of
the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000.
17. On 17.01.2019, the appellant revoked the suspension order of
respondent No. 1 dated 04.03.2015.
18. Immediately, thereafter on 25.01.2019, the appellant ordered
the retirement of respondent No. 1 as per Section 67 of the
Jharkhand State University Act, 2000 and paid her three months'
salary in lieu of notice period. Since the retiral benefits of respondent
No. 1 were not being paid, she made various representations.
-3 of 7-
2025:JHHC:25056-DB
19. It is only on 19.12.2019 that the Principal of 'R.L.S.Y. College
sent the service record of respondent No. 1 and requested the
appellant-University to settle the retiral benefits of respondent No. 1.
20. On 27.01.2020, respondent No. 1 made a representation for
release of her P.F. amount.
21. On 16.10.2020, the Vice-chancellor of the University
sanctioned payment of P.F. amount along with up to date interest to
respondent No. 1, which was duly received by her.
22. Thereafter, on 16.01.2021, respondent No.1 again made a
representation to the Registrar for the release of her pension and
other retiral dues along with the arrears.
23. The appellant on 21.02.2021 and 15.03.2023 sent the requisite
file pertaining to respondent No. 1 to the Department of Higher
Education.
24. However, the Department of Higher and Technical Education
vide letter dated 27.02.2021 informed the appellant-University
regarding there being some discrepancies in the proposal made for
fixation of pay of respondent No. 1 in the 5th Pay scale and the salary
fixed in the 6th pay scale and further instructed them to file a proper
report.
25. Since no action was taken, respondent No.1 was constrained
to approach the writ Court for grant of retiral benefits.
26. The learned writ Court allowed the writ petition and directed the
appellant herein to fix the pension of respondent No. 1 taking into
consideration 6th and 7th pay revision and further directed the
appellant to pay the benefits for which respondent No. 1 was legally
entitled to, within a period of 12 weeks.
-4 of 7-
2025:JHHC:25056-DB
27. Aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the learned writ Court,
the appellant-University has filed the instant appeal.
28. It is vehemently argued by Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, that the
findings recorded by the learned writ Court are totally perverse and
therefore, deserve to be set aside.
29. On the other hand, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate along with
Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate has supported the impugned
judgment and vehemently argued that the legal position has been
settled long time back and yet the appellants have unnecessarily
dragged respondent No. 1 into this avoidable litigation and therefore,
should be compensated in monetary terms by imposing cost.
30. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the materials available on record.
31. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 served the University as
a lecturer and thereafter, while she was posted a member of the
Jharkhand Public Service Commission, as many as six criminal cases
came to be lodged against her by the Vigilance Department. Out of
these six cases, she came to be acquitted in three cases, while the
other three cases are still pending adjudication, but the fact remains
that respondent No. 1 was never convicted. Even her suspension
orders passed from time to time came to be revoked. Therefore, the
only issue which was required to be decided by the learned writ Court
was as to whether pendency of a criminal case can by itself be a bar for
non-payment of retiral benefits including gratuity, pension, group
insurance and leave encashment.
32. The issue is no longer res integra, as has been held by the
learned writ Court and has otherwise been long decided by the Hon'ble
-5 of 7-
2025:JHHC:25056-DB
Supreme Court in Deoki Nandan Prasad-Vs.-Union of India, (1971) 2
SCC 330 by holding the pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet
will and the pleasure of the Government and the same is a valuable
right vested in a Government servant. In the later judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, pension has been held to be a right in
(property), which cannot be withheld and is to be treated, as deferred
salary. It is duly related and has a nexus with the salary payable to the
employees as on the date of retirement.
33. The legal provisions regarding withholding of retiral benefits was
a subject matter of a Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey
versus State of Jharkhand and Others reported in 2007 (4) JCR 1
wherein while dealing with the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules,
the legal position was summed up as under:
"(i) Under Rule 43(a) and 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, there
is no power for the Government to withhold gratuity and pension
during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal
proceeding. It does not give any power to withhold leave
encashment at any stage either prior to the proceeding or after
conclusion of the proceeding.
(ii) The circular, issued by the Finance Department, referring to
the withholding of the leave encashment would not apply to the
present facts of the case as it has no sanctity of law."
34. However, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid Full Bench was
doubted by another Bench and the reference was then made on
16.01.2020 to a Bench of 5 Judges. The Division Bench in the
reference order referred the following questions for consideration of the
larger Bench:-
"A. Whether encashment of unutilized leave forms part of
salary?
B. Whether it would be admissible even after dismissal of the
employee?
C. Whether the Full Bench has considered the provisions of
encashment of unutilized earned leave in its proper
perspective?"
-6 of 7-
2025:JHHC:25056-DB
35. Vide judgment dated 18.03.2025, question No. A was answered
by the larger Bench by concluding that in view of F.D.Memo No.P.C.2-
9-8/81/2150/b. dated 19.7.1984 and Memorandum No. PC-Miss-
50/97/4158/V dated 05.05.1998 issued by the State Government stating
that cash in lieu of unavailed Earned Leave is a form of salary. It was
held that the leave encashment is also a form of salary.
36. Question B was answered by holding that an employee, who has
been dismissed from service, is not entitled to leave encashment.
37. As regards Point 'C', it was held that an employee cannot be
denied leave encashment even after conclusion of the departmental
proceedings or criminal proceedings.
38. In view of the settled legal position, the learned writ Court
committed no error in directing the appellant to fix the pension of
respondent No. 1 by taking into consideration 6th and 7th pay revision
and thereafter fixing the benefits and pay the amount of gratuity, leave
encashment and other benefits for which respondent No. 1 was entitled
in accordance with law in view of the fact that respondent No. 1 had
neither been convicted nor was any punishment imposed upon
respondent No.1 pursuant to any departmental enquiry.
39. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal. This appeal is
dismissed leaving the parties to bear the cost.
40. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
A.F.R.
APK/VK
-7 of 7-
