KAMESHWAR PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner, a Reserve Veterinary Officer, posted in Regional Directorate, Ranchi, retired from service on 30/04/2004. When he was in service, he was put under suspension on 31/01/2002 after he was made an accused in fodder scam case. He retired from the service during the suspension period. After his retirement, by issue of Annexure -2 dated 31/07/2004, the respondents decided to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and it was directed to pay him 90% provisional pension only and to withhold 10% of his pension. The amounts of Gratuity as well as Leave Encashment amount were also ordered to be withheld till the pendency of the criminal case. It appears that a proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules though was initiated against the petitioner but the same is still pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that 10 % of his pensions, full amount of Gratuity and Leave Encashment have illegally been withheld by the respondent authorities. His further grievance is that while counting the period of his service for computation of pension the period in between 29/01/2002 to 30/01/2004, i.e. the period of his suspension, has not been taken into consideration, causing serious monetary loss to him. Further grievance of the petitioner is that he has also not been given the benefit of ACP Scheme. It is stated that for redressal of his grievances, he made representation to the respondents concerned but no positive order has been passed as yet. Accordingly, a prayer has been made in this writ application by the petitioner to direct the respondents to pay all his retiral dues, which has illegally been withheld and also to direct the respondents to count the period of his suspension towards his period of service for computation of Pension and for giving benefit of ACP Scheme.

(3.) SO far as the question of counting the period of his suspension towards the period of service for computation of pension is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General that since the State Government has not passed any specific order as required under Rule 97 (2) of the Bihar Service Code and, therefore, the period of suspension has not been counted for computing the pension. He further submitted that the State Government has already been requested to intimate its decision regarding treatment of period of suspension and to furnish sanction of full pension and Gratuity in respect to the petitioner but up till now no such decision has been communicated to the office of the Accountant General and, therefore, the period of suspension can not be taken into consideration for computing pension of the petitioner unless such decision is taken by the State Government.