R.R. Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while was posted as Head Clerk in the Office of Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, got retired on 31.01.1998. Thereafter when retiral dues were not paid, the petitioner filed writ application bearing W.P.(S) No. 2019 of 2002. Only then when order was passed by this Court, the retiral dues other than Pension and Gratuity were paid to the petitioner in full but so far Pension and Gratuity were concerned, the same under the order of the Court were paid to the extent of 90% only. In course of time, when it came to know that the petitioner is entitled to Pension and Gratuity to the extent of 100%, in view of the Full Bench decision rendered in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2007 (4) J.C.R.1 (Jhr) (F.B.), an application was filed before the respondent No. 3 - Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Range, Bokaro, for according sanction for payment of Pension and Gratuity to the extent of 100%, but that prayer was refused on the ground that a criminal case lodged against the petitioner, for misappropriation of certain amounts, is still pending and as such, he is not entitled to get the Pension and Gratuity to the extent of 100%. That order has been challenged, in this writ application, to be bad.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to a decision rendered in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra), submits that even if the petitioner is facing criminal trial, that cannot be a ground for the said authority to withhold 10% of the Pension and Gratuity and as such the order passed by the respondent No. 3 - Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Range, Bokaro is illegal, unjustified and bad.;