Big relief for two retired senior engineers as Jharkhand HC cancels pension cut
Ranchi, March 17: The Jharkhand High Court today dismissed two appeals filed by the state government, upholding earlier orders that quashed…
Ranchi, March 17: The Jharkhand High Court today dismissed two appeals filed by the state government, upholding earlier orders that quashed pension cuts imposed on two retired senior engineers of the Water Resources Department.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar ruled that the deduction of 5% pension for two years was not legally sustainable in the absence of proven misconduct or proper departmental proceedings.
Case Background: Pension Cut Over Alleged Irregularities
The state government had imposed a 5% pension cut for two years on retired engineers Nabin Narayan and Ramchandra Rajak, citing alleged irregularities in desilting-related works during 2014–15.
The penalties were challenged before a single judge, who quashed the orders in 2024. The state then filed Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) against that decision.
ALSO READ: West Bengal Polls: Why Eastern India needs a resurgent Bengal for Jharkhand to thrive
HC: Single Instance Not Enough to Cut Pension
The High Court observed that under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, pension can be reduced only if the entire service record is found unsatisfactory, not based on a single instance.
The bench noted that the government had relied on a specific allegation rather than assessing the officers’ full service careers.
No Proof of ‘Grave Misconduct’
The court further held that pension can also be reduced if grave misconduct is proven, but only through proper departmental or judicial proceedings.
In this case, the court found:
- No full-fledged departmental inquiry was conducted
- No charge-sheet was issued
- No proper hearing process was followed
“Mere allegation of irregularity is not sufficient,” the court observed.
Violation of Due Process
The bench emphasised that any action to reduce pension must follow the same procedural safeguards as disciplinary proceedings that could lead to dismissal.
Since these procedures were not followed, the court held that the condition for invoking Rule 139 was not fulfilled.
Appeals Dismissed
Upholding the single judge’s decision, the High Court dismissed both appeals filed by the state government and affirmed that the pension deductions were invalid.
“All pending interlocutory applications also stand dismissed,” the court said.
