Jharkhand High Court
Anand Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P(S) No.739 of 2025
-----
Anand Kumar, Retired Range Forest Officer, from Jharkhand Cadre,
aged sixty one (61) years, Son of late Jadunandan Roy, Resident of Flat
No.-302, Krishna Shree Apartment, Village/Mohalla-Anantpur, P.O.-
Doranda, P.S.-Chutiya, District-Ranchi, Pin Code No.-834002
..................Petitioner (In-Person)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand, Government of
Jharkhand, 1st Floor, Project Building, Village/Mohalla-Dhurwa, P.O
& P.S-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Pin Code No.834004
3. The Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Village/Mohalla- Nepal
House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi, Pin Code
No.-834002.
4. The Additional Chief Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Village/Mohalla-
Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Pin Code No.-
834004.
5. The Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand,
Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department,
Project Bhavan, Village/Mohalla- Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi, Pin Code No.- 834004.
6. The Principal Accountant General (A&E), State of Jharkhand, North
Office Para, Village/Mohalla-Shyamali Colony, P.O. & P.S.-
Doranda, District-Ranchi, Pin Code No.- 834002.
7. Deputy Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House,
Village/Mohalla- Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda,
District- Ranchi, Pin Code No.-834002.
8. The Secretary, Department of Law, Government of the State of
Jharkhand, 2nd Floor, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Durwa,
Village/Mohalla-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Pin Code Number-
834004.
9. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Jharkhand,
Circular Road, P.O.- Circular Road, P.S.-Lalpur, Village/Mohalla-
Lalpur, District- Ranchi, Pin Code Number-834001.
10.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, State of Jharkhand, Forest
Building-Campus, Village/Mohalla-Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda,
District- Ranchi-834002.
11.The Conservator of Forest, Working Plan Circle, Chaibasa,
Jamshedpur, 3rd Floor, Forest Building-Campus, Village/Mohalla-
Sonari East Singhbhoom, Opposite Sai temple, P.O. & P.S.- Sonari,
District-Jamshepur-831011.
12.Shri Sunil Kumar, Retired Officer, illegally reappointed on contract
after retirement as Enquiry Officer, Office of the Departmental
Enquiry Officer, Nagar Prashashan Bhawan (HEC), Goalchakkar,
Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Pin Code
Number-834004.
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
13.Om Prakash, Retired ACF, illegally reappointed after retirement as
Presenting Officer, Village/Mohalla-Forest Building Campus,
Doranda, P.O.- Doranda, P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi, Pin Code
Number-834002. ................Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anand Kumar, (In Person)
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV
For the Resp. No.6 : Ms. Oishi Das, Advocate
For the JPSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 30.07.2025 Pronounced on 08/08/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India inter alia for the following reliefs:
(i) Directing the Respondents to declare Sub-Rule (c) of Rule 43
of the Jharkhand Pension (Amendment) Rules, 2018, as ultra vires,
unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the
Constitution of India, as stated in [Annexure No.-20].
(ii) Strike down Sub-Rule (c) of Rule 43 in its entirety, as it
conflicts with the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification,
Control, and Appeal) Rules, 2016 and lacks statutory force against
retired employees.
(iii) Directing the Respondents to ensure the petitioner’s
fundamental rights are upheld in accordance with the Constitution of
India by setting aside or amending the impugned rule.
(iv) Sub-Rule (c) lacks sufficient statutory basis and exceeds the
powers granted by the parent legislation. It cannot override the
settled principles laid down by this Hon’ble Court and the Supreme
Court.
AND
2
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
(v) To quash the impugned order dated 25.06.2024 passed by
Respondent No. 2 (Principal Secretary, Forest, Environment, and
Climate Change Department, Jharkhand) via letter dated 25.06.2024,
which rejected the petitioner’s pensionary claims arbitrarily and
without lawful justification, despite previous clear-cut directions
issued by this Hon’ble Court Vide W.P.(S) No. 3650 of 2023.
[Annexure No.-21, 18].
(vi) Provide financial upgradation under the 2nd Assured Career
Progression (ACP) and 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression
(MACP) schemes.
(vii) Release the withheld pension commutation, retirement gratuity,
leave encashment, and travel allowance (TA) for post-retirement
settlement.
(viii) Calculate and henceforth, disburse:
(a) The gratuity amount, accounting for two years of in-service
training/probation.
(b) Payment for unused earned leave and sanctioned leave treated as
without salary ignoring previous order of this Hon’ble Court.
(c) Finalize and fix full and final pension from the retirement date
which is 31st March 2023, including the two-years training period in
the calculations.
AND
(ix) Direct the respondents to comply with orders dated 30.09.2024
passed by this Hon’ble Court vide W.P.(S) No. 5610 of 2009, which
not only set aside prior major punishment orders against the
petitioner but granted consequential benefits, including arrears of
Salary and financial upgradation in 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP schemes
from the actual assessment of time [Annexure No.-25].
(x) Direct the respondents to grant promotions to the petitioner to higher
posts (ACF, DCF, and CF), which have been unfairly withheld due
to ongoing departmental proceedings since 2012. The continued
delay violates the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2010 (Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High
Court of Delhi & Anr.), wherein it was held that departmental
proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time and
prolonged delays are unjust and prejudicial to the affected party.
3
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
(xi) Award statutory and penal interest at 12% on the unpaid amounts,
calculated from the retirement date (31st March 2023) until actual
disbursement, along with costs for the current and previous petitions.
(xii) Pending the final disposal of this petition, the Petitioner humbly
prays for an interim stay on the operation of Sub-Rule (c) of Rule 43
of the Jharkhand Pension (Amendment) Rules, 2018, and a direction
to release full and final pensionary benefits with its entire
consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition
needs to refer herein which reads as under:
(i) It is pleaded that the petitioner was appointed as a Gazetted Range
Forest Officer in 1991 and underwent in service training from 1992
to 1994. Upon successful completion of the training, he submitted
a joining report on 01.08.1994 at the Secretariate Headquarters in
Patna, Bihar and following the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of
Bihar, he was allotted to the Jharkhand Cadre and submitted a
joining report on 01.06.2004 at the Secretariat of the Department
of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand.
(ii) It is pleaded that the petitioner, appearing in-person, is a retired
Range Forest officer of the Jharkhand cadre of this State. He was
superannuated from service after attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.03.2023 and is entitled to pensionary
benefits but the respondent-State on one reason or the other has
denied to give pensionary benefits to him.
(iii) It is pleaded that Enquiry officer, Ehteshmul Haque, has to submit
a report against the petitioner aligned with their references.
Mr. Haque declined to comply and returned the entire departmental
proceedings to the Respondents without any findings. The
respondents forwarded the ongoing departmental proceedings to
4
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
another Enquiry Officer, Sri Vivek Narayan Akhauri, employing
the same fraudulent and manipulative tactics, the respondents
ensured that the proceedings were returned without any inquiry
being concluded.
(iv) It is pleaded that on 16.11.2022 Enquiry Officer, Shri Arbind
Kumar refused to comply with the Respondents’ alleged ulterior
motives regarding the baseless charges against the petitioner and
returned the entire proceedings without rendering any findings.
(v) It is pleaded that on 26.11.2024 Enquiry Officer, Shri Kamal John
Lakra, forwarded departmental proceedings for inquiry. Shri
Lakra, evidently unable to withstand the coercive tactics and undue
pressure imposed by the respondents, refused to conduct even a
single day of inquiry.
(vi) The respondents issued a second show-cause notice (Letter No.
3094) dated 21.07.2018, levying serious charges against the
petitioner. However, even after lapse of seven years, no
documentary evidence has been provided.
(vii) It is pleaded that the respondents issued Resolution No. 14127
dated 26.12.2012 limited the time frame 105 days for concluding
departmental proceedings.
(viii) It is pleaded that the arbitrary issuance of letters no. 2349 and 2356
dated 22.06.2023, without following due process and after the
petitioner’s retirement on 31.03.2023, renders the proceedings
unsustainable.
(ix) It is pleaded that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 16.12.2015 in the
case of “Prem Nath Bali appellants vs. Registrar, High Court of
Delhi & Anr.” Vide Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2010, held that all
5
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
employers, including the State, must conclude departmental
inquiries within a reasonable timeframe, ideally within six months
and not exceeding one year.
(x) It is pleaded that the petitioner has made complaint against the
respondents, involving the illegal sale of forest land, sale of
valuable timber to mafias, and embezzlement of government funds
exceeding Rs.1000 crore. These allegations were communicated to
the Chief Secretary through Letter No. 1494 dated 10.04.2018 but
till date no action has been taken in this regard.
(xi) It is pleaded that the petitioner lodged four criminal cases against
the controlling and senior officers who involved in the
embezzlement of government funds and raised concerns with the
DIG by letter no. 51 on date 17.03.2015; the request for action was
summarily dismissed.
(xii) It is pleaded that petitioner filed a complaint to the Chief Secretary,
Jharkhand exposing financial embezzlement of Rs. 425.35 lakhs
against the respondents.
(xiii) It is pleaded that the petitioner challenged the illegal appointment
of Assistant Conservators of Forests (ACF).
(xiv) It is pleaded that the petitioner challenged the illegal promotion of
PCCF, Jharkhand, namely, B.C. Nigam and obtained an order
dated 12.08.2024, the respondents retaliated by initiating several
baseless proceedings.
(xv) It is pleaded that the petitioner challenged these illegal
reappointments through W.P. (S) Filing No. 12785 of 2024, an
order dated 13.01.2025. Petitioner’s actions were driven by the
need to combat gross administrative illegality.
(xvi) It is pleaded that the respondents, issued suspension Letter No.
3451 dated 13.08.2018 which was against the petitioner. This
punitive action, clearly motivated by malice, was linked to six
ongoing departmental proceedings initiated since 2012.
6
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
(xvii) It is pleaded that the respondents issued a deemed suspension order
(Letter No. 2362) dated 22.06.2023, a full three months after
superannuation of the petitioner.
(xviii) It is pleaded that the petitioner filed W.P. (S) No. 721 of 2022
before this Hon’ble Court, challenging the unlawful suspension and
an order was passed by revoking the suspension and a direction
was passed to accept the joining of the petitioner and resolve the
issue of pending salary and due to non-compliance of the order of
this Court a contempt case being Contempt Case (Civil) No.347 of
2023 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of on
28.07.2023 with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in
accordance with law.
(xix) It is pleaded that the petitioner filed W.P. (S) No. 721 of 2022
before this Hon’ble Court, challenging the unlawful suspension and
an order passed dated 10.11.2022.
(xx) It is pleaded that the petitioner seeks redressal of pensionary
benefits from this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 3650 of
2023. This Hon’ble Court, by its order dated 09.04.2024, directed
the respondents to resolve the petitioner’s grievances and issue a
reasoned order.
(xxi) It is pleaded that the petitioner (in-Person) with no alternative but
to file a contempt petition bearing Cont. Case (Civil) No. 674 of
2024 before this Hon’ble Court, which was disposed of vide order
dated 13.12.2024 with liberty to the petitioner to take steps in
connection with the reasoned order in accordance with law.
(xxii) It is pleaded that the respondents issued a reasoned order declined
grievances to the petitioner, vide Letter No. 2374 dated
25.06.2024, without assigning any lawful justification for their
actions.
(xxiii) It is pleaded that the Divisional Forest Officer, Medininagar Forest
Division send several letter No. 3364, 3365, 3366 and 3367 on
31.12.2024 via Speed Post which were received by the petitioner
(in-person) on date 06.01.2024 communicating that an enquiry has
been setup on 17.12.2024 against the departmental proceeding in
the chamber of Enquiry Officer, namely, Sunil Kumar who is a
7
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
retired officer and reappointed as an inquiry officer in this case
before issuing letter to the petitioner.
(xxiv) It is pleaded that the petitioner requested the original charge
memo and supporting documents, including evidence and witness
details, through a letter dated 17.12.2024, referring to Letter Nos.
4662, 4663, and 4664 dated 06.12.2024.
(xxv) It is pleaded that the petitioner requested through letters dated
07.01.2025 and 09.01.2025 to provide relevant documents with
regard to inquiry, but the respondents failed to provide the original
charge memo, supporting documents, and evidence, violating the
petitioner’s right to a fair inquiry.
(xxvi) It is pleaded that the petitioner has repeatedly highlighted the lack
of fairness in departmental inquiries, particularly the absence of
articles of charges, verifiable evidence, and witness details. The
respondents’ failure to act or respond demonstrates a misuse of
disciplinary powers intended to intimidate and harass the
petitioner.
(xxvii) It is pleaded that petitioner (in-person) challenged the illegal
major punishment of censure and withholding of three increments
with cumulative effect in W.P. (S) No. 5610 of 2009. This Hon’ble
Court, vide its detailed and unequivocal order dated 30.09.2024,
quashed the punishment and appellate orders, terming them grossly
unlawful.
(xxviii) It is pleaded that the respondents have unlawfully withheld the
petitioner’s full and final pension, including the amounts due for
gratuity and unused earned leave, citing the impugned Sub-Rule
(c) of Rule 43 of the Jharkhand Pension (Amendment) Rules,
2018.
8
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
3. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition for
the aforesaid reliefs.
Argument on behalf of the writ petitioner:
4. The petitioner in-person has submitted that the insertion of Rule 43(c) in
the Statute book is ultra vires to the Constitutional right to get pension as
has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the pension is not a
bounty but it is right to property. Alternatively, the argument has been
advanced that even otherwise, the proceedings which have been initiated
against the party in-person is prior to the insertion of Rule 43 (c) in the
Statute book and, hence, the provision of Rule 43 (c) will not be
applicable with retrospective effect.
5. The party in-person has submitted that the pension although has been
fixed but not yet finalized, as also the gratuity is not being paid even
though there is no finding either in the departmental or judicial
proceeding such withholding the benefit of finalization of pension and
the gratuity is only on the pretext of pending proceeding in view of the
provision of Rule 43 (c) is not to be extended, therefore, the present writ
petition.
Argument on behalf of the Respondent-State:
6. Per contra, Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, the learned State counsel has submitted
that while the writ petitioner was in service the departmental proceedings
have been initiated which culminated into the order of punishment. The
other departmental proceedings which have been initiated since are
pending and, as such, in view of the provision of Rule 43(c), the pension
cannot be finalized and even the gratuity cannot be paid.
Analysis:
9
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
pleadings made in the writ petition.
8. It needs to refer herein that the Secretary, Forest, Environment and
Climate Change Department, Government of Jharkhand has been called
upon by the order passed by this Court on 29.07.2025 and in pursuant
thereto he appeared before this Court.
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the
Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department,
Government of Jharkhand and directed the Secretary of the concerned
department to come with the original record so that the concerned
Secretary to come prepared on the issue of applicability of the provision
of Rule 43(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000.
10.The Secretary of the concerned department is present along with the
details of the pending departmental proceedings and the departmental
proceedings which have been concluded.
11. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the parties has
dispensed with the personal appearance of the concerned Secretary vide a
separate order passed on 30.07.2025 while reserving the judgment.
12.The matter is being heard even though the issue of validity of statutory
provision of 43 (c) has not been raised rather the argument has been
advanced on the question of applicability of it and with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard on the aforesaid
issue without relegating the matter to the learned Single Judge taking into
consideration requires that the issue involved in the present case is with
respect to finalization of pension and the disbursement of the amount of
gratuity which is not being done by the State-respondent.
10
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
13. The issue of pension having not to be considered as bounty has been
considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Deokinandan
Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Ors.” reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330,
wherein at paragraph-33 it has been held which reads as under:
“33. Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the
opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property
under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no
power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also
property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5)
of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order, dated June 12,
1968, denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the
fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1)
of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is
maintainable. It may be that under the Pension Act (Act 23 of 5
1871) there is a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit
relating to the matters mentioned therein. That does not stand in the
way of writ of mandamus being issued to the State to property
consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension
according to law.”
14. It is evident from the factual aspect that several departmental
proceedings have been initiated against the writ petitioner while he was
in service. The some of the departmental proceedings have been
concluded and the order of punishment has been awarded in the same
while the writ petitioner was in service. The other departmental
proceedings which have been initiated while the writ petitioner was in
service but not concluded even the writ petitioner has retired from the
service after attaining the age of superannuation with effect from
31.03.2023.
15. The provision of Rule 43 (c) has been inserted in the Jharkhand Pension
Rules,2000 on 23.07.2018. The background of insertion of Rule 43 (c) in
the Statute book of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 is the judgment
rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of “Dudh Nath
11
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
Pandey (Dr.) v. State of Jharkhand“, 2007 SCC OnLine Jhar 487 and
“State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and
Anr”., (2013) 12 SCC 210.
16. The Full Bench of this High Court in the case of “Dudh Nath Pandey
(Dr.) v. State of Jharkhand” (supra) has categorically held that on the
ground of pending either departmental or judicial proceeding the
pension/leave encashment cannot be withheld, for ready reference the
relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being referred herein
as:
“26. It is noticed that there is no statute, rule or any law, which
empowers the State Government to withhold the leave encashment.
As mentioned earlier, Rule 43(a) and 43(b) would not provide for
the withholding of leave encashment. Under those circumstances,
the Respondents took the stand that the withholding of the leave
encashment was under the circular issued by the Finance
Department.
38. In the light of the above ruling, we are to hold that the circular
issued by the Finance Department has no force of law and as such
would not confer any power to withhold the leave encashment,
which is termed as a property. To sum up the answer for the two
questions are as follows:
(i) Under Rule 43(a) and 43(b) of 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.
Both the questions are answered accordingly”.
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court while rendering the judgment in the case of
“State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and
Anr.“, (supra), has also taken into consideration of the judgment
12
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in “Dudh Nath Pandey (Dr.) v.
State of Jharkhand” (supra) has observed that a reading of Rule 43(b)
makes it abundantly clear that even after the conclusion of the
departmental inquiry, it is permissible for the Government to withhold
pension, etc. only when a finding is recorded either in departmental
inquiry or judicial proceedings that the employee had committed grave
misconduct in the discharge of his duty while in his office and there is no
provision in the Rules for withholding of the pension/gratuity when such
departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are still pending. For
ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being
quoted as under:
“13. A reading of Rule 43(b) makes it abundantly clear that even after
the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, it is permissible for the
Government to withhold pension, etc. only when a finding is recorded
either in departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings that the
employee had committed grave misconduct in the discharge of his
duty while in his office. There is no provision in the Rules for
withholding of the pension/gratuity when such departmental
proceedings or judicial proceedings are still pending.”
18. In the aforesaid Judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed
that pension is not a bounty, rather it is a right to property, for ready
reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being
referred herein as:
8. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not
bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long,
continuous, faithful and unblemished service. Conceptually it is so
lucidly described in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305
: 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] by D.A. Desai, J. who spoke for the Bench, in
his inimitable style, in the following words: (SCC pp. 319-20, paras
18-20)
“18. The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too easy
of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it
required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will13
2025:JHHC:22498-DBinclude even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any obligation
on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the
contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has
ceased to render service?
19. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public
interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve
some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of
retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these
and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to
this petition.
20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratuitous
payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not
claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be
enforced through court has been swept under the carpet by the
decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of
Bihar [(1971) 2 SCC 330 : 1971 Supp SCR 634] wherein this Court
authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does
not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by
the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is
entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension
does not depend upon anyone’s discretion. It is only for the purpose of
quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied
matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to
that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not
because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was
reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh [(1976) 2 SCC 1 : 1976
SCC (L&S) 172 : (1976) 2 LLJ 377] .”
It is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in
the nature of “property”. This right to property cannot be taken away
without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A
of the Constitution of India.
19.The State of Jharkhand thereafter by way of amendment has amends the
rules of “Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000” and inserted the sub-rule (c) in
Rule 43 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, for ready reference the sub
rule (c) in Rule 43 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 is being referred
herein as:
“(c) Where any departmental or judicial proceeding is instituted or
continued against an officer/employee who has retired on attaining
the age of compulsory retirement or otherwise, he shall be sanctioned
14
2025:JHHC:22498-DBby the Government which instituted such proceeding, during the
period commencing from the date of his retirement to the date on
which, upon conclusion of such proceeding final orders are passed, a
provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension which would
have been admissible on the basis of his qualifying service upto the
date of retirement, or if he was under suspension on the date of
retirement, upto the date immediately preceding the date on which he
was placed under suspension, but no gratuity or death-cum-retirement
gratuity shall be paid to him until the conclusion of such proceedings
and the issue of final orders thereon.”
20. It needs to refer herein the provision of Rule 43 (b) wherein it has been
provided that only in a case of finding guilty either in the departmental or
judicial proceeding the full or part of the pension can be withheld, for
ready reference the Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 is
being referred herein as:
“43(b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the
right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it,
whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of
ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused to the Government if the pensioner is found
in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave
misconduct; or to have cause pecuniary loss to Government by
misconduct or negligence, during the service including service
rendered on re-employment after retirement:
Provided that –
(a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the
Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during
re-employment;
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State
Government;
(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than
four years before the institution of such proceedings; and
(iii) 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;
(b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government
servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-
15
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-
clause (ii) of clause (a); and
(c) the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, shall be consulted
before final orders are passed. ”
21.The statutory provision as contained under Rule 43 (b) has been
interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Dudh Nath
Pandey (Dr.) v. State of Jharkhand” (supra) and “Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava”. The State of Jharkhand in order to neutralize the effect of
the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
“Jitendra Kumar Srivastava” (supra) has come out with the insertion of
Rule 43 (c) in the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000.
22.The party in-person in the midst of argument has submitted that
otherwise also the statutory provision as contained under the provision of
Rule 43 (c) will not come in the way of release of pensionary benefit
which also includes gratuity because after initiation of departmental
proceeding, the sub-rule(c) in Rule 43 of “Jharkhand Pension Rules,
2000” has been inserted as such, for the present he is arguing only on the
issue of applicability of the provision of Rule 43 (c).
23.This Court, therefore, has not gone into the issue of validity of Rule 43
(c), rather as agreed between the parties has gone into the issue of the
applicability of provision of Rule 43 (c) as to whether the provision of
Rule 43 (c) is applicable retrospectively.
24. It would be apt to refer herein that the law is well settled that the
statutory provision is not to be implemented with retrospective effect
unless provided under the statute for applying with retrospective effect,
the reference in this regard is made to the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in “P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka“, (1990) 1
SCC 411 wherein at paragraph-5, it has been observed which reads as:
16
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
“5. It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory
rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication
made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the
statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights
the rule must be held to be prospective. If a rule is expressed in
language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be
construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision
or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect
except in matter of procedure. The amending Rules of 1987 do not
contain any express provision giving the amendment retrospective
effect nor there is anything therein showing the necessary intendment
for enforcing the rule with retrospective effect. Since the amending
Rules were not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of
those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on
the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection
had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force,
the amended Rules could not affect the existing rights of those
candidates who were being considered for selection as they possessed
the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its
amendment moreover construction of amending Rules should be made
in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who
have no control over the subject matter.”.”
25. In another judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in “K.S.
Paripoornan v. State of Kerala“, (1994) 5 SCC 593, it has been held
which reads as under:
“A substantive law is held to be prospective as a matter of legal policy
since it is founded on public policy that no right be so created as to
work to the disadvantage for whom it is created as it if be so, “it
would be betrayal of what the law stands for.””
26. It is further evident from the provision of Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand
Pension Rules, 2000, particularly, the explanation part wherein it has
been referred that the date will be said to be initiation of departmental
proceeding from which the proceeding will be said to be initiated. The
departmental proceeding will be said to be initiated when the date of
memorandum of charge has been issued or decision has been taken to
initiate a departmental proceeding. While in the case of judicial
17
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
proceeding the date when the charge-sheet has been submitted before the
competent Court of jurisdiction, the judicial proceeding will be said to be
pending.
27.This Court in order to consider the applicability of the provision of Rule
43 (c) in the light of the settled proposition of law, that any Statute
cannot be given retrospective application unless specifically been
stipulated in the Statutory provision.
28. Admittedly, the provision of Rule 43 (c) has been inserted with effect
from July 2018 having no reference of its retrospective application, and,
as such, said provision of Rule 43 (c) will be prospectively applied.
29.Adverting to the factual aspect pertaining to initiation of departmental
proceedings, we have considered the date of initiation of departmental
proceeding, for ready reference the same is being referred herein as :
श्री आनन्द कुमार, सेवाननवृत वन क्षेत्र पदानिकारी के नवरूद्ध नवभागीय काययवाही / न्यायानयक मामलें की अद्यतन स्थिनत
क्र० आरोप सकल्प संख्या आरोनपत पदानिकारी को प्रास्थि संचालन की अभ्युस्थि
सं० नतनि अद्यतन स्थिनत1 2 3 4 5 6
1. (1) 2,84,668/- का गबन श्री आनन्द कुमार वन क्षेत्र अपर प्रिान मुख्य वन सींरक्षक, मानव जााँ च प्रधर्वेदन सींधचका
करना। पदाधिकारी, पाटन वनरोपण प्रक्षेत्र, सींसािन धवकास, झारखण्ड, राीं ची के प्राप्त। उपस्थापन की
(2) कर्तव्य में लापरवाही बरर्ना मेधदनीनगर वन प्रमीं डल (सम्प्रधर् पत्राीं क-702 धदनाीं क-23.11. 2017 के (03.07.2025) कारत वाई की जा
। धनलींधबर्) के धवरुद्ध धवभागीय ज्ञापन द्वारा श्री कुमार को ज्ञापन सीं 0-2529 रही है ।
(3) वरीय पदाधिकारी को िोखा सीं0-2529 धदनाीं क-15.06. 2017 धदनाीं क-15.06.2017 को हस्तगर्
दे ना। धवभागीय कायतवाही सींचाधलर् की करार्े हुए उक्त की पावर्ी रसीद मू ल
(4) क्षेत्र भ्रमण नहीीं करना। गयी, धजसकी प्रधर् श्री आनन्द कुमार में धवभाग को उपलब्ध करायी गयी है ।
(5) गरीब मजदू रोीं का मजदू री को भी भेजी गयी है । वन सीं रक्षक, कायत धनयोजन अीं चल,
भुगर्ान नहीीं करना। धवभागीय अधिसूचना सीं0-603 चाईबासा (जमशे दपुर) के पत्राीं क-10
धदनाीं क-24.02.2024 के द्वारा धदनाीं क-08.01.2025 के द्वारा सूधचर्
झारखण्ड पें शन धनयमावली के धकया गया है धक धवभागीय
धनयम-43 (ख) अीं र्गत र् सम्पररवधर्त र् अधिसूचना सीं 0-4769 धदनाीं क-12.12.
धकया गया है । 2024 आरोधपर् पदाधिकारी के
04 / व०क्षे ० पदा० (आ०)-107/2013 दे हरादु न वाले पर्ा पर speed post
के माध्यम से भेज धदया गया है एवीं
उक्त पत्र को श्री कुमार के मे ल
[email protected]
एवीं उनके whatsapp
no-9471555302 पर भी भेजा गया
है ।
2 1. कैम्पा योजना अीं र्गत र् रू० धवभागीय सीं कल्प सीं ख्या-2595 मुख्य वन सीं रक्षक, काधमतक जााँ च प्रधर्वेदन
30,41,511/- की राधश का ले खा धदनाक-31.05. 2016 एवीं अधिसूचना (राजपधत्रर्), झारखण्ड, राीं ची के अप्राप्त' 6 ।
समधपतर् नहीीं कर सरकारी राधश सीं०-3543 धदनाीं क 02.12. 2022 द्वारा पत्राीं क-474 धदनाीं क-30.08. 2023 के
का गबन करना। धवभागीय कायतवाही सींचाधलर् की द्वारा सू धचर् धकया गया है धक वन
2. मनरे गा योजना अींर्गत र् रू० गयी। सींरक्षक, कायत धनयोजन अींचल
19,66,050/- की राधश का ले खा जमशेदपु र ने धवभागीय अधिसूचना
समधपतर् नहीीं कर सरकारी राधश धवभागीय अधिसू चना सीं 0-2499 सीं0-2499 धदनाीं क-04.07.2023 को
का गबन करना। धदनाीं क-04.07. 2023 के द्वारा आरोधपर् पदाधिकारी श्री कुमार को
3. सरकारी राधश का गबन कर झारखण्ड पें शन धनयमावली के र्ाधमला कराकर र्ाधमला प्रधर्वेदन
धनजी सम्पधर् अधजत र् करना। धनयम-43 (ख) अीं र्गत र् सम्पररवधर्त र् धवभाग को समधपत र् धकया है ।
4. कमतचारी आचरण धकया गया है ।
धनयमावली के प्राविानोीं का
उल्लींघन करना। 09/व०क्षे०पदा० (आ0)-32/2015
3 सरकारी सेवक आचार धवभागीय सीं कल्प सीं ख्या-1506 मुख्य वन सीं रक्षक, काधमतक राजपधत्रर् जााँ च प्रधर्वेदन सींधचका
धनयमावली-1976 के धनधहर् धदनाीं क 11.04. 2018 एवीं अधिसूचना के पत्राीं क-586 धदनाीं क-21.07. 2018 प्राप्त । उपस्थापन की
प्राविानोीं का उल्लींघन । सीं0-1442 धदनाीं क 23.05. 2022 द्वारा के द्वारा सूधचर् धकया गया धक कारत वाई की जा
अमयात धदर् ढीं ग से पत्राचार एवीं धवभागीय कायतवाही सींचाधलर् की धवभागीय सींकल्प सीं0-1506 धदनाीं क- (03.07.2025) रही है ।
18
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
अपने धनयींत्री उच्चाधिकाररयोीं के गयी। 11.04. 2018 आरोधपर् पदाधिकारी
धवरूद्ध धमथ्या एवीं अभद्र आरोप धवभागीय अधिसू चना सीं 0-2356 को र्ाधमला करा धदया गया है ।
लगाकर बदनाम करने का धदनाीं क-22.06.2023 के द्वारा
प्रयास कर अनु शासनहीनर्ा का झारखण्ड पें शन धनयमावली के
पररचय दे ना। धनयम-43 (ख) अींर्गतर् सम्पररवधर्त र्
धकया गया है ।
03 / व०से०पदा० (आ०)-03/2015
4 1) सरकार एवीं उच्चाधिकाररयोीं धवभागीय ज्ञापन सींख्या-1067 धदनाीं क- वन सीं रक्षक, कायत धनयोजन अीं चल, दण्ड के धबन्दु पर सींधचका
के आदे श की अवहे लना करना। 07.03. 2013 द्वारा धवभागीय चाईबासा के पत्राीं क-325 धदनाीं क-07. कारत वाई उपस्थापन की
(2) मनमाने ढीं ग से स्वेच्छापू वतक कायतवाही सींचाधलर् की गयी। जााँ च 06.2018 के द्वारा सूधचर् धकया गया है प्रधियािीन। जा रही है ।
धनयींत्री पदाधिकारी को अनुमधर् प्रधर्वे दन प्राप्त । धक आरोधपर् पदाधिकारी को धद्वधर्य
के धबना कायत से अनुपस्थस्थर् धवभागीय कायतवाही को धवभागीय कारण पृ च्छा से सीं बींधिर् धवभागीय
रहना। अधिसूचना सीं 0-3755 धदनाीं क-05.10. पत्राीं क-1813 धदनाीं क-07.05.2018
(3) धनयींत्री पदाधिकारी के 2023 के द्वारा झारखण्ड पेंशन र्ाधमला करा धदया गया है ।
अनुमधर् के धबना धनयमावली के धनयम-43 (ख) अीं र्गत र् अपर प्रिान मुख्य वन सींरक्षक,
उच्चाधिकाररयोीं से साक्षात्कार सम्पररवधर्तर् धकया गया है । कायतधनयोजन, झारखण्ड, राीं ची के
करना । / व०क्षे०पदा० (आ०)-03/2010 द्वारा श्री कुमार को धवभागीय
अधिसूचना सीं 0-3755 धदनाीं क-
05.10.2023 र्ाधमला कराकर
र्ाधमला प्रधर्वे दन नही उपलब्ध
कराया गया है ।
5 (1) जलछाजन कायत हे र्ु व्यय धवभागीय ज्ञापन सींख्या-2527 धदनाीं क- अपर प्रिान मुख्य वन सींरक्षक, मानव जााँ च प्रधर्वेदन सींधचका
का 1,56,293/-रू० का गबन 15.06.2017 एवीं अधिसूचना सीं0- सींसािन धवकास, झारखण्ड, राीं ची के प्राप्त । उपस्थापन की
करना । 1443 धदनाीं क-23.05.2022 द्वारा पत्राीं क-701 धदनाीं क-23.11. 2017 के कारत वाई की जा
(2) कर्तव्य में लापरवाही धवभागीय कायतवाही सींचाधलर् की द्वारा श्री कुमार को ज्ञापन सीं 0-2527 (03.07.2025) रही है ।
बरर्ना। गयी। धदनाीं क-15.06.2017 को हस्तगर्
(3) प्राक्कधलर् राधश से अधिक करार्े हुए उक्त की पावर्ी रसीद
राधश का व्यय कर अधनयधमर्र्ा धवभागीय अधिसूचना सीं0-3061 मूल में धवभाग को उपलब्ध करायी
करना। धदनाीं क-07.08. 2023 द्वारा गयी है ।
(4) क्षेत्र भ्रमण नहीीं करना। झारखण्ड पें शन धनयमावली के वन सींरक्षक, कायत धनयोजन अींचल,
धनयम-43 (ख) अींर्गत र् सम्पररवधर्त र् चाईबासा (जमशे दपुर) के पत्राीं क-10
(5) अनुशासनहीनर्ा धकया गया है । धदनाीं क-08.01.2025 के द्वारा सूधचर्
(1) 3,21,186.20 रू० सरकारी धकया गया है धक धवभागीय
राधश का गबन करना। वर्तमान में धवभागीय अधिसूचना सीं 0- अधिसूचना सीं0-4757 धदनाीं क-
(2) प्राक्कधलर् राधश से 4757 धदनाीं क-16.12.2024 के द्वारा 16.12. 2024 आरोधपर् पदाधिकारी
1,30,826 रू० का अधिक व्यय लींधबर् उक्त धवभागीय कायतवाही की के दे हरादु न वाले पर्ा पर speed
कर धवधिय अधनयधमर्र्ा जााँ च पूणत करने हे र्ु श्री सुनील कुमार, post के माध्यम से भे ज धदया गया है
करना। भा०प्र० से० (सेवाधनवृ र्) को जााँ च एवीं उक्त पत्र को श्री कुमार के मे ल
(3) सरकारी कर्तव्योीं के प्रधर् पदाधिकारी धनयुक्त धकया गया है । [email protected] एवीं उनके
घोर लापरवाही बरर्ना । whatsapp no-9471555302 पर
(4) अनुशासनहीनर्ा का 04 / व०क्षे० पदा० (आ०)- भी भेजा गया है ।
पररचय दे ना। 108/2013
6 1. धनयीं त्री पदाधिकारी अनैधर्क धवभागीय सींकल्प सीं ख्या-2528 अपर प्रिान मुख्य वन सीं रक्षक, मानव जााँ च प्रधर्वेदन सींधचका
दबाव बनाकर अमानर् में धदनाीं क-15.06. 2017 एवीं सींसािन धवकास, झारखण्ड, राीं ची के प्राप्त। उपस्थापन की
खयानर् करने का प्रयास अधिसूचना सीं 0-1447 धदनाक पत्राीं क-700 धदनाीं क-29.11. 2017 (03.07.2025) कारत वाई की जा
करना। 23.05. 2022 द्वारा धवभागीय के द्वारा श्री कुमार को ज्ञापन सीं 0- रही है ।
2. धनयींत्री पदाधिकारी को कायतवाही सींचाधलर् की गयी। 2528 धदनाीं क-15.06.2017 को
अनावश्यक रूप से आरोधपर् धवभागीय अधिसू चना हस्तगर् करार्े हुए उक्त की पावर्ी
कर बदनाम करने का प्रयास सीं0-2363 धदनाीं क-22.06.2023 के रसीद मूल में धवभाग को उपलब्ध
करना। द्वारा झारखण्ड पें शन धनयमावली के करायी गयी है ।
3. कायत एवीं दाधयत्व के प्रधर् धनयम-43 (ख) अींर्गत र् सम्पररवधर्त र्
लापरवाही बरर्ना एवीं धनरीक्षण धकया गया है । धजसके सींदभत में वन धनयोजन
आधद सरकारी कायत में बािा वर्तमान में धवभागीय अधिसूचना सीं 0- सींरक्षक, कायत अींचल, चाईबासा
पहुाँ चाना। 4664 धदनाीं क-06.12.2024 के द्वारा (जमशे दपुर) के पत्राीं क-10 धदनाीं क-
4. अिीनस्थ पदाधिकारी को लींधबर् उक्त धवभागीय कायतवाही की 08. 01.2025 के द्वारा सूधचर् धकया
प्रर्ाध़िर् करना। जााँ च पूणत करने हे र्ु श्री सुनील कुमार, गया है धक धवभागीय अधिसू चना सीं 0-
भा०प्र० से० (सेवाधनवृ र्) को जााँ च 4664 धदनाीं क-06.12.2024
पदाधिकारी धनयुक्त धकया गया है । आरोधपर् पदाधिकारी के दे हरादु न
वाले पर्ा पर speed post के
09/व०क्षे०पदा० (आ0)-25/2015 माध्यम से भेज धदया गया है एवीं उक्त
पत्र को श्री कुमार के मे ल
[email protected] एवीं उनके
whatsapp no-9471555302 पर
भी भेजा गया है ।
आरोधपर् पदाधिकारी के अभ्यावेदन
धदनाीं क-17. 12.2024 के आलोक में
पुनः धवभागीय पत्राीं क-4942 धदनाीं क-
30.12.2024 के द्वारा आरोप पत्र,
आरोपोीं के समतथन में साक्ष्य एवीं
वाीं धछर् अधभलेख श्री कुमार को भे जा
गया है ।
7 1. धबना अनुमधर् के कायत धवभागीय ज्ञापन सींख्या-2530 धदनाीं क अपर प्रिान मुख्य वन सींरक्षक, मानव जााँ च प्रधर्वेदन सींधचका
कराकर मजदू रोीं एवीं सरकार 15.06.2017 एवीं अधिसूचना सीं0- सींसािन धवकास, झारखण्ड, राीं ची के प्राप्त। उपस्थापन की
एवीं धवभाग के धलए धविीय 1445 धदनाीं क-23.05.2022 द्वारा पत्राीं क-703 धदनाीं क-29.11. 2017 के (03.07.2025) कारत वाई की जा
परे शानी ख़िा करना। धवभागीय कायतवाही सींचाधलर् की द्वारा श्री कुमार को ज्ञापन सीं 0-2530 रही है ।
2. मनमाने र्रीके से आीं धशक गयी। धदनाीं क-15.06.2017 को हस्तगर्
कायत कराकर पू णत राधश की धवभागीय अधिसू चना सीं 0-2378 करार्े हुए उक्त की पावर्ी रसीद मू ल
माीं ग करना एवीं सरकारी राधश धदनाीं क-22.06. 2023 के द्वारा में धवभाग को उपलब्ध करायी गयी है ,
गबन करने की मींशा रखना। झारखण्ड पें शन धनयमावली के पावर्ी रसीद के अनुसार श्री कुमार
3. ले खा समधपत र् नहीीं करना एवीं धनयम-43 (ख) अीं र्गत र् सम्पररवधर्त र् द्वारा धदनाीं क-07.09. 2017 को उक्त
र्रह-र्रह के हठकींडे अपनाना धकया गया है । अधिसूचना प्राप्त धकया गया है ।
यथा वनपाल पर झूठा आरोप वर्तमान में धवभागीय अधिसू चना सीं 0- वन सीं रक्षक, कायत धनयोजन अीं चल,
लगाकर प्राथधमकी दजत करना। 4663 धदनाीं क-06.12.2024 के द्वारा चाईबासा (जमशे दपुर) के पत्राीं क-10
लींधबर् उक्त धवभागीय कायतवाही की धदनाीं क-08.01.2025 के द्वारा सूधचर्
19
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
जााँ च पूणत करने हे र्ु श्री सु नील कुमार, धकया गया है धक धवभागीय
भा०प्र० से० (सेवाधनवृ र्) को जााँ च अधिसूचना सीं 0-4663 धदनाीं क-
पदाधिकारी धनयुक्त धकया गया है । 06.12.2024 आरोधपर् पदाधिकारी
के दे हरादु न वाले पर्ा पर speed
09 / व०क्षे०पदा० (आ०)-30/2015 post के माध्यम से भे ज धदया गया है
एवीं उक्त पत्र को श्री कुमार के मेल
[email protected]
एवीं उनके whatsapp no-
9471555302 पर भी भेजा गया है ।
आरोधपर् पदाधिकारी के अभ्यावेदन
धदनाीं क-17. 12.2024 के आलोक में
पुनः धवभागीय पत्राीं क-4943 धदनाीं क-
30.12.2024 के द्वारा आरोप पत्र,
आरोपोीं के समतथन में साक्ष्य एवीं
वाीं धछर् अधभलेख श्री कुमार को भे जा
गया है ।
8 धवगर् चौदह-पन्द्रह वर्षो से धवभागीय सीं कल्प सीं ख्या-4055 धवभागीय सींकल्प सीं0-4055 धदनाीं क- जााँ च प्रधर्वेदन सींधचका
लगार्ार अनु शासनहीनर्ा धदनाीं क-28.09. 2018 अधिसूचना 28.09.2018 आरोप पत्र की प्रधर् के प्राप्त। उपस्थापन की
बरर्ना एवीं सरकारी से वक सीं0-3340 धदनाीं क-16.11.2022 एवीं साथ श्री कुमार को (आरोधपर् (03.07.2025) कारत वाई की जा
आचार धनयमावली का उल्लीं घन अधिसूचना सीं0-179 धदनाीं क- पदाधिकारी) को प्रेधर्षर् है । रही है ।
करना। 17.01.2023 द्वारा धवभागीय साथ ही उक्त सीं दभतमें प्रिान मु ख्य वन
कायतवाही सींचाधलर् की गयी। सींरक्षक, झारखण्ड रााँ ची के माध्यम से
उक्त सीं चाधलर् धवभागीय कायतवाही भी आरोधपर् पदाधिकारी को आरोप
को धवभागीय अधिसूचना सीं 0-2349 की प्रधर् सधहर् हस्तगर् कराने का
धदनाीं क-22.06.2023 द्वारा झारखण्ड अनुरोि धकया गया है ।
पेंशन धनयमावली के धनयम-43 (ख)
अींर्गत र् सम्पररवधर्त र् धकया गया है ।
वर्तमान में धवभागीय अधिसूचना सीं 0-
4758 धदनाीं क-16.12.2024 के द्वारा
लींधबर् उक्त धवभागीय कायतवाही की
जााँ च पूणत करने हे र्ु श्री सुनील कुमार,
भा०प्र० से० (सेवाधनवृ र्) को जााँ च
पदाधिकारी धनयुक्त धकया गया है ।
09 / व०क्षे०पदा० (आ०)-19/2018
9 (1) मस्टर रॉल पर जाली अींगुठे प्रिान मु ख्य वन सीं रक्षक, धबहार, _ धवभागीय प्रस्तुर् आरोप के
के धनशान के आिार पर फजी पटना के कायात लय आदे श सीं0-141 कायतवाही के मामला में
भुगर्ान धदखाकर रू० धदनाीं क-18. 10.2002 सहपधठर् सींचालन के अधिरोधपर् दण्डो
9,998.96 का सरकारी राधश ज्ञापाीं क-5149 धदनाीं क-18.10. 2002 उपराीं र् धवभागीय के धवरूद्ध श्री
गबन में सींधलप्तर्ा । द्वारा धवभागीय कारवाई सींचाधलर् है । अधिसूचना कुमार द्वारा
(2) सरकारी राधश की सींख्या-63 माननीय
र्ष़ियीं त्रपूणत धनकासी कर / व०क्षे ०पदा० (आ०)-28/2004 धदनाीं क-07.01. झारखण्ड उच्च
उच्चधिकाररयोीं को िोखे में रख 2005 के द्वारा न्यायालय में वाद
कर 1,25,000/-का गबन करने धनम्न दण्ड WP(s) No-
का प्रयास करना र्था अस्थायी धनरोधपर् धकया 5610/2009
गबन करना। गया। धदनाीं क-
(3) लेखा सींबींिी घोर 30.09.2024 में
अधनयधमर्र्ा बरर्र्े हुए (1) धनन्दन को पाररर्
सरकारी राधश का अस्थायी रूप (2) र्ीन वे र्न न्यायादे श के
से गबन करना एवीं अन्य। वृस्थद्ध सींचयात्मक धवरूद्ध धवभाग
प्रभाव से रोक । द्वारा LPA No-
- प्रथम अपील 216/2025 दायर
अभ्यावेदन धकया गया है
अस्वीकृर् है । धजसमें अगली
- धद्वर्ीय अपील सुनवाई धदनाीं क-
अभ्यावेदन भी 07.10.2025
खाररज । धनिात ररर् है ।
10 (1) गोपनीय सरकारी दस्तावे ज प्रस्तुर् मामले में प्र०मु०व०सीं ०, धबहार, _ प्र०मु०व०सीं ०,
को अनु धचर् र्रीके से प्राप्त पटना द्वारा कारवाई प्रारीं भ की गयी धबहार द्वारा
करना। श्री कुमार, वन क्षेत्र पदाधिकारी के सींचाधलर्
(2) सरकारी एवीं मींधत्रपररर्षद् के अींधर्म रूप से झारखण्ड सीं वगत धवभागीय
स्तर पर की जाने वाली गोपनीय आवींधटर् होने के उपराीं र् उक्त कायतवाही में
कायतवाही के सींबींि में अनुधचर् धवभागीयीं कायतवाही से सींबींधिर् प्रमाधणर् आरोपोीं
रूप से सूचना प्राप्त करना। आरोप पत्र एवीं जााँ च प्रधर्वेदन के धवरुद्ध
(3) सरकार के समक्ष अपने प्र०मु०व०सीं ०, धबहार, पटना के धव०अ०सीं०-5299
बचाव में धमथ्या एवीं आिारहीन पत्राीं क-3254 धदनाीं क-24.07. 2004 धदनाीं क-
र्कत प्रस्तुर् करना। झारखण्ड सरकार को भेजर्े हुए 10.09.05 के
आवश्यक कारवाई करने का अनु रोि द्वारा उन्हें अगले
धकया गया है । र्ीन वर्षों र्क
प्रोन्नधर् पर रोक
/ व०क्षे०पदा० (आ०)-44/2004 लगाया गया।
11 (1) मनरे गा में धनयोधजर् मजदू रोीं धवभागीय ज्ञापन सीं0-1606 धद०- _ धवभागीय अधिरोधपर् दण्ड
की मजदू री का भु गर्ान नहीीं 08.05.2010 सहपधठर् धवभागीय अधिसूचना सीं 0- के धवरूद्ध
करना। अधिसूचना सीं 0-5230 धदनाीं क-26.12. 3072 धदनाीं क- आरोधपर्
2012 द्वारा धवभागीय कारत वाई 09.06.15 द्वारा पदाधिकारी के
(2) सरकारी कायत में बािा सींचाधलर् । धनम्न दण्डो का द्वारा WP(S) No-
पहुाँ चाना। अधिरोधपर् धकये 6503/2024
/ व०क्षे०पदा० (आ०)-07/2009 गयेः - दायर धकया गया
(3) कलमी आम वृक्षारोपन में 1. 10,117/-रू0 है । धवभागीय
1,66,131.00 रु० का अस्थायी की वसूली पत्राीं क-323
गबन एवीं सू द की राधश 10,117. धदनाीं क-23.01. धदनाीं क-
00 रु० का गबन । 2008 से वसूली 28.01.2025 एवीं
की धर्धथ र्क धवभागीय पत्राीं क-
12% प्रधर्शर् 2473 धदनाीं क-
सािारण ब्याज 15.07.2025 के
सधहर् की जाय। द्वारा
2. र्ीन वेर्नवृस्थद्ध पी०सी०सी०एफ०
20
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
पर असींचयात्मक कायात लय से
प्रभाव से रोक। धवर्षयक वाद में
धनन्दन । प्रधर्शपथ पत्र
दायर धकये जाने
हे र्ु र्थ्यकथन
उपलब्ध कराने
का अनुरोि
धकया गया है , जो
धक अद्यर्न
अप्राप्त है ।
12 (1) धबना पू वत सू चना के अपने धवभागीय ज्ञापन सीं 0-1516 धदनाीं क _ धवभागीय -Do-
कर्तव्य से अनुपस्थस्थर् रहना। 29.04.10 सहपधठर् धवभागीय सीं 0- कायतवाही
05-06 5230 अधिसू चना धदनाीं क-26.12. सींचालन के
(2) धवभागीय कायत में रूधच नहीीं 2012 द्वारा धवभागीय कारत वाई उपराीं र् धवभागीय
लेना। सींचाधलर् । अधिसूचना
(3) अनुशासनहीनर्ा। सींख्या-1095
/ व०क्षे०पदा० (आ०)-02/2010 धदनाीं क-
28.02.2014
द्वारा धनम्न दण्ड
अधिरोधपर् धकये
गये :-
1. दो वेर्न
असींचयात्मक
रोक। वृस्थद्ध
प्रभाव से
2. धनन्दन ।
30. It is evident from the above tabular chart that all the proceedings have
been initiated prior to insertion of provision of Rule 43 (c) in the Statute
book, i.e, the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, as such, as per the settled
position of law that if any proceeding will be initiated retrospective to the
insertion of the statutory provision, the said statutory provision will not
come in the way. However, one of the proceedings was initiated after the
insertion of the provision of Rule 43 (c) but as would be evident from
Rule 43(c) which was issued by virtue of the departmental Circular No.
4055 dated 28.09.2018, but it is evident by the reference of the said
departmental proceeding, as referred in serial no.8 of the tabular chart in
the preceding paragraph, that the said proceeding deemed to be converted
under the provision of Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000.
Once the said provision has been converted under the provision of Rule
43(b), meaning thereby, there cannot be any further decision by applying
the provision of Rule 43(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000. The
said departmental proceeding even though has been initiated after
insertion of the provision of Rule 43 (c) even then the rider as referred in
Rule 43(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 will not be applicable
since it is admitted case of the respondent-State that the departmental
21
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
proceeding initiated in course of the service of the writ petitioner deemed
to be converted under the provision of Rule 43 (b). Therefore, the Rule
43(c) is also not applicable so far as the said departmental proceeding
vide departmental Circular N0. 4055 dated 28.09.2018 is concerned.
31. Herein, the proceeding which has been initiated against the writ
petitioner after the insertion of the provision of Rule 43(c) in Jharkhand
Pension Rules, 2000 in which the punishment has already been imposed,
therefore, the same is not coming in the way of disbursement of pension
in pursuant to the provision under Rule 43(c) of the Jharkhand Pension
Rules, 2000.
32.It is evident from the aforesaid fact as referred hereinabove that a
departmental proceeding has been initiated in all the cases prior to
insertion of the provision of Rule 43 (c) in the Jharkhand Pension Rules,
2000, hence, the provision of Rule 43 (c) since is not applicable
retrospective application and, as such, in the proceeding which has been
initiated prior to insertion of the provision of Rule 43 (c) in the
Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 will not govern by the provision of Rule
43 (c), rather the same will be governed by the provision of Rule 43 (b)
of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000.
33.This Court, in view of the aforesaid, is of the considered view that
withholding of fixation of final pension including gratuity at the fag end
of service by the State-respondent in the light of the discussions made
hereinabove, on the factual as well as the legal aspect, cannot be said to
be justified and, accordingly, it is held to be unjustified in view of the
settled position of law that merely on the ground of pending proceeding
either the departmental or judicial proceedings the pension cannot be
withheld which is not a bounty rather right to property.
22
2025:JHHC:22498-DB
34. Further, the provision of Rule 43 (c) is having no retrospective
application, hence, the action of the respondent-State of Jharkhand in not
finalizing the pension including the non-disbursement of the amount of
gratuity is held to be improper and unjustified.
35.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a direction upon the State-
respondent to forthwith fix and finalize the pension of the petitioner as
also to release the amount of gratuity within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
36.With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands
allowed to the aforesaid extent.
37.Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
I Agree.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Sudhir
Jharkhand High Court,
Dated:08./08/2025
AFR
23