2025:JHHC:27924 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.S No. 5473 of 2024 ---- Kartik Chandra Pramanik aged about 62 years, son of Sri Sonaram Pramanik, resident of House No. E/4, Road No.02, Rishabh Nagar, P.O. Sail City, P.S. Jagarnathpur, (Pundag O.P.), District Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administration &Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. The Directorate of Prosecution, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Saket Nagar, Back of Indira Palace, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 6. The Principal Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. … … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : In Person For the Respondents: Md. Shahabuddin, S.C.-VII Ms. Oishi Das,Advocate ---- 05/ 04.09.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) from this Hon’ble Court for quashing the orders in letters No. GE-5-APP-VIII-07-1600 dated 16.02.2023 and No. GE-5-APP-VIII-07-360 dated 16.05.2023 and issue direction upon the respondent No. 6 for issuing fresh pay slip of the petitioner and amend the PPO (Pension Payment Order) No. 112247625 by accounting the previous service period already counted by the Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand under rule 58 and rule 63 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules in concurrence with “Aantatik Vitta Salahkar” for the pension purpose, that the respondent No.6 has not adhered the order of the Home Department, Government of Jharkhand regarding the past service count of the petitioner by fixing pay on the first joining in the prosecution service 2025:JHHC:27924 -: 2 :- as warranted by the rule 63 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, the circular of the finance department, Government of Jharkhand and also the Central Government pay fixation method and procedure for inclusion of previous service period with the prosecution service period for the purpose of pension and other service & retiral benefits. 3. The petitioner was first appointed as a Senior Audit Officer in the State Government on 26.03.1990 and worked there for around 8 years before resigning to join the Prosecution Service as an Assistant Public Prosecutor on 15.01.1999. He later retired as an Additional Public Prosecutor on 30.06.2022, completing 23 years in the Prosecution Department. In total, he served the state government for 32 years. When he joined the Prosecution Service, he applied to get his previous Audit Service counted towards his pension and retirement benefits which was accepted under Rule 58 and Rule 63 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. However, the authority responsible for issuing the Pension Payment Order (PPO), respondent No.6 refused to revise his pay claiming that it had already been done. This led to filing of this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have acted wrongfully and unfairly, causing financial loss by issuing a lesser and incorrect pension. He further submits that despite multiple applications and supporting documents, the respondent authority continues to deny the rightful counting of his Audit Service for pension and retiral benefits which violates the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Though the PPO mentions the petitioner’s total service of 32 years, the pension has been wrongly calculated based only on 23 years of prosecution service, ignoring the earlier 8 years of audit service. He further submits that the PPO issuing authority has no right to reject or alter what has already been approved by the pension sanctioning authority. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no violation of the Jharkhand Pension Rules as the PPO has been issued by Respondent No.6 strictly in accordance with the documents, pay fixation details, and service record forwarded by the Department of Home, the competent authority for service verification and pension sanction. He further submits that the calculation of pension amount is based on the last pay drawn and the qualifying service as authenticated by the Home Department. 6. After hearing both the parties andupon perusal of the records, I find that the petitioner was first appointed as senior audit officer under the 2025:JHHC:27924 -: 3 :- state government and after around 8 years he joined the post of assistant public prosecutor and finally got retired after total 32 years of service. I find that the gratuity, leave encashment etc. have already been paid to the petitioner, considering the total length of service of 32 years. So far as pension of the petitioner is concerned it is the stand of the petitioner that his total service should be counted. From the record I find that the petitioner has already completed his minimum qualifying service and has been given full pension based on his last pay drawn. The additional period of service which he has served in Audit Department is of no consequence as he already completed minimum qualifying service for pension and he is receiving pension on last pay drawn by him. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is dismissed, as relief which the petitioner is entitled to receive as per law, has already been granted to him. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02