Jharkhand High Court
Sarita Devi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 10 August, 2016
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1941 of 2012
-------
Sarita Devi, wife of Late (Dr.) Anand Deo Singh, resident of
New Shashtri Nagar, Madhukam, Ratu Road, Post Office-
Hehal, Police Station-Sukhdeo Nagar, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2.The Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandary & Fishery
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Post
Office & Police Station-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3.The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Post Office & Police
Station-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, J.C to G.P. V
------
10/ Dated: 10th August, 2016
Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:
In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing notification dated 23.09.2011 whereby the pension of the husband of the petitioner has been withheld permanently w.e.f 31.03.2008 and further for direction upon the respondents to forthwith release the entire pensionery benefits and further to continue and pay the pension on month to month basis.
2. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, J.C to learend G.P. V for the respondents-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner, who joined his services in the Animal Husbandary Department, was implicated in some of the Fodder Scam Cases. However, while the trial of the cases was in progress, the husband of the petitioner superannuated from services w.e.f 29.02.2004 and accordingly, pensionary benefits were paid, except the amount of gratuity and leave encashment. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner has been convicted in the cases lodged against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that basing on the conviction, the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that impugned order has been passed in purported exercise of power under Section 43 (a) and (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, but no notice or show cause has been issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order has no leg to stand.
4. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment rendered in the case of Bal Krishna Dubey Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors in W.P. (S) No. 1656 of 2009.
5. Referring to Rule 43 (a) and (b) of the Jharkahnd Pension Rules, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that due to conviction and punishment in judicial proceeding, the future good conduct of the husband of the petitioner-Dr. Anand Deo Singh has been dismantled, which is an implied condition of every grant of pension. Further, Rule, 27 of the Jharkahnd Pension Rules, says 'Pension includes gratuity" Therefore, in the light of Rule 27 , 43 (a) & (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, the government has issued notification dated 23.09.2011.
6. Be that as may be, the fact remains that the impugned notification dated 23.09.2011 whereby the pension of the petitioner has been withheld permanently w.e.f 31.03.2008, has been issued without issuing any show cause notice in utter non-compliance of principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the very issue has been decided in W.P. (S) No. 1656 of 2009 vide order dated 11.11.2009 and other cases, wherein this Court has been pleased to quash the impugned order/notification on the ground of non-compliance of principles of natural justice.
7. In such view of the matter, the impugned notification dated 23.09.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to take fresh decision in the matter, in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-