[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Mathura Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 299 of 2025
-----
Mathura Prasad ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sunil Kumar ... ... ...O.P.(s)
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate
For the O.P.(s) : Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II
Mr. Srikant Swaroop, AC to AAG-II
----------
Order No. 07/Dated 9th April, 2026
1. Reference may be made to the order dated 09th March, 2026,
by which we have passed the following order:-
"1. It is a case where the proceeding has been sought to be
initiated under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act
for the alleged wilful and deliberate non-compliance of the order
dated 15.10.2024 passed in L.P.A No. 355 of 2022.
2. This Court has passed a specific direction as under
paragraph nos. 9, 10 and 11 in the backdrop of the fact that what
is the rationale in deducting the amount without quantifying so as
to the decision for recovery of the amount from the pension in
exercise of power conferred under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand
Pension Rule may be said to be justified. This Court, therefore,
has passed an order in L.P.A No. 355 of 2022 by directing the
respondent no. 2 to call upon the appellant to make his
submission on the quantum of loss aspect and also as to whether
and to what extent recovery of the pecuniary loss should be made
from the pension payable to him.
3. A personal hearing has also been directed to be given to
the appellant. The respondent no.2 has been directed to pass a
reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate it to the
appellant.
4. The further direction has been passed to refund the
amount already recovered along with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of recovery till the date of repayment to
the appellant.
5. Show-cause has been filed. It has been submitted that the
principal amount has been paid but what is the amount said to be
paid in favour of the petitioner herein is not available.
Furthermore, no reasoned order has been appended meaning
thereby no reasoned order has been passed by the authority.
6. This Court is coming to such conclusion that when the
show cause filed said to be the part compliance to the order
passed by this Court dated 15.10.2024 in L.P.A No. 355 of 2022
wherein the specific direction has been passed to pass a reasoned
order after calling upon the petitioner and as such the same order
if had been passed then it must have been appended with the
show cause.
7. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the show-cause
affidavit which has been filed is not worth to be accepted and
accordingly it is rejected.
8. This Court was inclined to issue notice under Rule 393 of
the Jharkhand High Court Rules but refraining itself at the
moment and granting further two weeks' time to file compliance
report along with the show-cause within two weeks.
9. List this case on 24.03.2026."
2. While passing the order on 09th March, 2026, we
restrained ourselves from issuing notice under Rule 393 of the
Jharkhand High Court Rules by granting a chance to the opposite
party to file the compliance affidavit showing compliance of the
court's order in its letters and spirit.
3. The show cause has been filed on 24.03.2026.
4. It has been stated in the said show cause that payment
has already been made to the petitioner as per the e-Payment
Response dated 09.03.2026.
5. The reply has been filed to the aforesaid affidavit on
01.04.2026 wherein it has been stated that the opposite party no. 2
has deducted a sum of Rs. 15,08,971/- as salary minus (-)
subsistence allowance from 07.12.2009 to 31.08.2012.
6. Further, the opposite party no. 2 has recovered a sum of
Rs. 31,55,037/- by way of 25 % deduction from the pension for the
period 01.09.2013 till February, 2026.
7. It has further been stated that the opposite party no. 2 is
only entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 5,39,701.25/-, but the amount
has been recovered much much higher i.e. amount of
Rs.46,64,008/- from the pension of the petitioner. As such, the
excess amount of Rs. 41,24,306.75/- has been recovered.
8. The statement has been made in the reply that the
opposite party no. 2 has paid a sum of Rs. 2,06,096/- on
10.09.2025. But, still the petitioner is to get an amount of
Rs.39,18,190/- without interest.
9. This Court has already taken cognizance of the amount,
which is to be recovered i.e. the amount which has been recovered
much more than Rs. 5,39,701.25/- by taking note about the same in
order dated 18.06.2025, which is being referred herein :-
"1) Since the order passed on 17.04.2025 by the 2nd respondent does
not take into account the last portion of the order dt. 15.10.2024 in
L.P.A. No. 355 of 2022, and since it cannot be disputed that the
amount already recovered from the petitioner is much more than
Rs. 5,39,701.25 paisa, the said respondent is directed to refund the
amount recovered in excess of the said amount of Rs. 5,39,701.25 to
the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum as directed in the order
dt. 15.10.2024 in L.P.A. No. 355 of 2022 within six weeks.
2) List on 13.08.2025."
10. Show cause, which has been filed said to be in terms of
the order dated 09.03.2026, therefore, is being not considered to be
satisfactory. Hence, the same is, hereby, rejected.
11. In view thereof, let notice be issued under Rule 393 of
the Jharkhand High Court Rules to the Opp. Party No.2-the
Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government
of Jharkhand, as to why the proceeding under Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 be not initiated against him for alleged willful and
deliberate non-compliance of the order passed by this Court dated
15.10.2024 in L.P.A. No.355 of 2022.
12. Let this matter be listed on 30.04.2026.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Date : 9th April, 2026
Kamlesh/ Nishant/-
