Jharkhand HC orders final pension for retired teacher despite pending criminal case
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA Ranchi, July 12: In a significant ruling on pension rights of retired government employees, the Jharkhand High Court has…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, July 12: In a significant ruling on pension rights of retired government employees, the Jharkhand High Court has directed the State government to process the final pension of a retired assistant teacher despite the pendency of a criminal case, holding that once disciplinary proceedings have concluded and punishment has been imposed under the Jharkhand Pension Rules, there is no justification for withholding the final Pension Payment Order (PPO).
Justice Deepak Roshan passed the order while allowing in part a writ petition filed by Shyam Deo Prasad Singh, a retired assistant teacher from Koderma district, who had challenged the authorities’ failure to issue his final pension despite an order withholding only 10 per cent of his pension for a fixed period of 10 years.
Departmental proceedings had already reached finality
According to the case records, Singh retired on December 31, 2016. Departmental proceedings initiated against him during service culminated in an order dated June 29, 2017, imposing several penalties, including withholding 10 per cent of his pension from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2026.
However, despite the disciplinary order attaining finality, the State government did not forward the petitioner’s service book and pension papers to the Accountant General, resulting in payment of only provisional pension for several years.
Pending criminal case not a ground to delay final pension
The State argued before the High Court that a criminal case registered in 2017 relating to alleged financial irregularities was still pending, making it inappropriate to issue the final PPO.
The Court rejected the contention, observing that the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 had already concluded and the State had exercised its power by imposing a specific pension cut.
Justice Roshan held that once punishment under Rule 43(b) has attained finality, there is no legal basis for indefinitely withholding the final fixation of pension merely because a criminal case on the same allegations remains pending. The Court observed that the State’s action was contrary to the object of Rule 43(b), which empowers the government to withhold or reduce pension after establishing misconduct through departmental or judicial proceedings.
High Court issues time-bound directions
The High Court directed the Director, Higher and Secondary Education and the District Superintendent of Education, Koderma, to forward the petitioner’s service records, pension papers and sanction orders to the Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, within six weeks.
The Accountant General has been directed to issue the final Pension Payment Order within a further six weeks by fixing the petitioner’s pension at 90 per cent for the period from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2026, and restoring 100 per cent pension with effect from January 1, 2027, in accordance with the punishment order.
Medical allowance claim to be reconsidered
The petitioner had also sought payment of a ₹1,000 monthly medical allowance after retirement.
The Court noted that the legal provisions supporting the claim had not been clearly placed on record and directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the competent authority. The authority has been asked to pass a reasoned order within six weeks.
The Court further clarified that if the allowance is admissible under the applicable government rules or notifications, it should not be denied solely because the criminal case remains pending.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling reinforces that final pension fixation cannot be indefinitely delayed after departmental proceedings have concluded and punishment has been imposed under the Jharkhand Pension Rules. The judgment is likely to serve as an important precedent for retired government employees facing prolonged delays in receiving final pension orders despite the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.
