D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in total disregard to the law laid down by this Court as well as dehors the principles of natural justice, an order at Annexure 7 has been passed by respondent no. 3 dated 24th August, 2006 and, hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that so far as other prayers, which are made in the memo of the petition is concerned, the final orders are already prepared for payment of the pension and gratuity etc., but, some amount is required to be deducted and, therefore, they have not been implemented. The recoverable amount is to the tune of Rs. 1,32,657/-. Nonetheless, if the direction is given to respondent no. 3 to take a fresh decision and the same will be taken on the basis of judgment upon which the petitioner is relying upon in accordance with law, rules, regulations and policy and after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and treat this petition as a representation.
(3.) Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby direct respondent no. 3 to treat this petition as a representation and will decide the amount of the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner. So far as, deduction of amount is concerned as stated in Annexure 7, the same has been decided without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Respondent no. 3 will also consider the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Jhupru Degri v. The State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2003 (4) JLJR 209. Enough has been said by way of warning to the subordinate officer of the State especially in paragraph 4 of the said judgment, though not required to be reiterated and issuance of instruction has been directed to be done through Chief Secretary of the State so that multifariousness of the petition can be avoided. It appears that respondent no. 3 has burned deaf ear to this factually clear judgment. I hope and expect that Chief Secretary must have complied with the aforesaid paragraph 4 and then also respondent no. 3 has not considered at all the aforesaid decision and, therefore, I hereby direct respondent no. 3 to make a mention of the aforesaid judgment in his order. The decision will be taken by respondent no. 3 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court and the decision will be taken after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to his representative. Petitioner will approach respondent no. 3 on 1st June, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. and, thereafter, respondent no. 3 will give his time as per his own time schedule. In view of non observation of the principles of natural justice, which is bare minimum requirement, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by respondent no. 3 dated 24th August, 2006, reserving aforesaid liberty.;