- (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while posted as Line Inspector in the Electric Supply Sub Division, Hirapur, Dhanbad got retired on 31.8.2009. Thereupon, other retiral benefits were paid to the petitioner but he was paid only 90% of pension and gratuity as 10% of gratuity and pension was withheld by the Authorities on the ground of pendency of vigilance case, but the Authority in view of the decision rendered in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, 2007 4 JCR 1 has no right to withhold the amount of pension and gratuity on the ground of pendency of either departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding and hence the orders, as contained in Annexures-1 and 1/1, withholding 10% of pension and gratuity respectively, are fit to be quashed.
(3.) I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Admittedly, 10% of pension and gratuity has been withheld by the Authority on the ground of pendency of vigilance case but the Authority does not have any power to do so in view of the decision rendered in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra), wherein it has been held that on the ground of pendency of either judicial proceeding or departmental proceeding the amount of retiral benefits (pension and gratuity) cannot be withheld. Under the circumstances, the order, as contained in Annexures-1 and 1/1, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Electric Supply Area, J.S.E.B., Dhanbad respondent no. 2 is hereby directed to make payment of rest of the amount payable to the petitioner towards pension and gratuity with statutory interest, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.;