He was also number paid leave encashment and gratuity.
On promulgation of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, State of Jharkhand Appellant herein came into existence and the Respondent became the employee of the appellant State.
While these proceedings were still pending, on attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent retired from the post of Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi on 31.08.2002.
The respondent challenged the rejection by filing another Writ Petition before the High Court.
in terms of Resolution No.
2007 4 JCR 1.
Remaining 10 percent pension and salary of his suspension period 30.1.2002 to 30.8.2002 was withheld pending outcome of the criminal cases departmental inquiry against him.
Not happy with this outcome, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this appeal.
The respondent filed Intra Court Appeal which has been allowed by the Division Bench vide the impugned orders dated 31.10.2007.
This Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court by remitting the case back to the Department to decide the claim of the petitioner for payment of provisional pension, gratuity etc.
Thereafter, on 18.3.2004, the Appellant sanctioned 90 percent provisional pension to the respondent.
The appellant, thereafter, companysidered the representation of the respondent but rejected the same vide orders dated 16.3.2006.
The said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
Prosecution, in respect of the aforesaid two criminal cases against the respondent is pending.
Feeling aggrieved with this action of the withholding of his 10 percent of the pension and number release of the other aforesaid dues, the respondent preferred the Writ Petition before the High Court of Jharkhand.
On 16.4.1996, two cases were registered against him under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging serious financial irregularities during the years 1990 1991, 1991 1992 when he was posted as Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi.
He joined the said Department in the Government of Bihar on 2.11.1966.
The appellant sanctioned the release and payment of General Provident Fund on 25.5.2003.
In the said full Bench Judgment dated 28.8.2007, after detailed discussions on the various nuances of the subject matter, the High Court has held To sum up the answer for the two questions are as follows Under Rule 43 a and 43 b of Bihar Pension Rules, there is numberpower for the Government to withhold Gratuity and Pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding.
1427 of 2009.
On 30th January, 2002, the appellant also ordered initiation of disciplinary action against him.
For the sake of companyvenience we will gather the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP Civil No.
Only facts which need to be numbered, giving rise to the aforesaid questions of law, are the following The respondent was working in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries.
The High Court has answered this question, vide the impugned judgment, in the negative and hence directed the appellant to release the withheld dues to the respondent.
3014 dated 31.7.1980.
K. Sikri, J Leave granted.
