RANCHI, India, April 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on March 17:

1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner and Mr. Saurav Mahto, learned AC to GP-I.

2. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for review of the order of dismissal dated 27.02.2023 passed in LPA No. 31 of 2022.

3. It has been submitted by Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner that the appeal was dismissed without taking into consideration that no formal order regarding stoppage of pension was passed. Mere issuance of notices cannot be termed as final order passed by the competent authority under Rule 139 (b) or 139 (c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. It has been submitted that the pension of the petitioner cannot be stopped when there has been no order passed by the State Government under Rule 139(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules and the pensions sanctioning authority stands denuded of his powers to reduce/ revise the pension of an employee after sanctioning of pension.

4. Mr. Saurav Mahto, learned AC to GP-I has submitted that the petitioner was convicted in a criminal case and would be entitled to pension only for the period 14.04.2006. There is no error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the present review application is liable to be dismissed.

5. The facts briefly stated reveal that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Office of the Regional Director, Department of Animal Husbandry where he joined on 14.04.1980. On completion of approximately 21 years of service the petitioner had submitted an application on 13.12.2001 for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.03.2002. The said application was rejected by the respondents vide order as contained in Letter No. 1356 dated 16.05.2002 and communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 734 dated 18.05.2002 and the petitioner was asked to join his duty. The order of rejection of his plea for voluntary retirement was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.4837 of 2002 and during the pendency of the writ application the petitioner was put under suspension vide order as contained in Memo No. 3137 dated 14.12.2002 on the ground that he was an accused in connection with RC 5(A)/2000 A.H.D. (Pat). A departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner and vide order as contained in Memo No.28 dated 07.01.2005 the petitioner was dismissed from service. The orders subsequent to the filing of the writ application was challenged by the petitioner through an interlocutory application and the writ application being W.P.(S) No. 4837 of 2002 was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2011 holding therein that the petitioner has voluntarily retired on 31.03.2002 and therefore, all consequential orders passed by the Department in the departmental inquiry were quashed.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpBScfukpe%2FrI7L4kdwtZiXnxmMpAZrlGDc59UM5kw3Df&caseno=C.Rev./61/2023&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010270642023&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.