2025:JHHC:12938 -: 1 :- W.P.(S) No. 6909 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S) No. 6909 of 2024 ---- Khiru Rai, S/O late Dilo Rai, R/O Village Rachinahi, Naya Tola, P.O & P.S. – Matihari, Dist. Begusarai, Bihar. … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand, Through the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, having Office at Police headquarters, PO PS Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi. 2. The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Having Office at Police headquarters, PO PS Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Having Office at Police headquarters, PO PS Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi. 4. The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police, Hazaribagh, PO PS & District Hazaribagh. … … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, Advocate For the Respondents: Ms. Sunita Kumari, AC to SC-II ---- O R D E R Reserved on 15.01.2025 Pronounced on 28.04.2025 02/ 28.04.2025 By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction commanding upon the respondents to calculate and pay amount of full pension, full gratuity, arrears of pension, revised pension under 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th pay revision along with penal interest. Since the petitioner has superannuated on 01.05.2001 and has been acquitted from the criminal case vide order dated 30.07.2007 in S.T. No.409/1998 itself, but he is only receiving 90% provisional pension and the 10% provisional pension and gratuity has been withheld and no benefit of revision has been given to him due to pendency of criminal proceeding against him. 2. The petitioner, a havildar in Jharkhand Armed Police, got implicated in a criminal case being Ichak P.S. Case No. 82/1997 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He retired on May 1, 2001, but some part of his retirement benefits was withheld due to the ongoing criminal case. He filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4309/2001 for the release of his dues. This Court vide order dated 11.09.2001 directed the authorities to decide his claim within three months. In 2003, the petitioner filed another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4451 of 2003 for ACP benefits, and this Court vide order dated 2025:JHHC:12938 -: 2 :- W.P.(S) No. 6909 of 2024 12.03.2005 again directed the authorities to resolve the matter within six weeks. On 14th May 2008, the Inspector General of Police ordered full pension, but later on, on 21.05.2008 decided to withhold it until the criminal case was concluded. The petitioner was acquitted in the case by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh vide order dated 30.07.2007 passed in ST no. 409 of 1998. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already superannuated on 01.05.2001 from the post of Havildar under Jharkhand Armed Police. He submitted that after his superannuation no retirement benefit was paid to him on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(S) No. 4309 of 2001 for payment of retirement benefit wherein this Court vide order dated 11.09.2001 remitted the case back to the authority to decide the claim of the petitioner. He submitted that the respondent withheld 10% of pension as well as gratuity of the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner subsequently approached this Court for payment of ACP benefit by filing W.P. (S) No. 4451 of 2003 wherein this Court vide order dated 12.03.2005 directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and take decision within six weeks. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the respondent authority finally vide order dated 21.05.2008 decided to take a decision after the conclusion of the criminal case. He also submitted that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on 30.07.2007. He argued that during the pendency of judicial or departmental proceeding, the pension of the petitioner cannot be withheld by the authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in which the charges against the petitioner are of heinous nature, however, the petitioner was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. Against the said acquittal an acquittal appeal was also filed being Acquittal Appeal No. 24 of 2007 which is still pending. He further submitted that this Court in W.P.(S) Case No.4309 of 2001 itself had given direction that the decision with regard to pension and gratuity be finalized after the disposal of the criminal case. He further submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid order 90% provisional pension and gratuity was paid to the petitioner. He further submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4451 of 2003, Inspector General of Jharkhand Armed Police vide Memo No. 711 dated 21.05.2008 took the decision of withholding the pension and gratuity till the final outcome of the criminal case. He further submitted that 2025:JHHC:12938 -: 3 :- W.P.(S) No. 6909 of 2024 the petitioner was acquitted not with honour rather he was given benefit of doubt, hence the claim of gratuity and other benefits are not tenable in the eyes of law. He submitted that the departmental proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner has already been concluded with a final order to forfeit one increment for two years and at that time the acquittal appeal filed against the petitioner was pending. 5. From the facts and arguments of the parties, I find that the petitioner had superannuated on 01.05.2001. After superannuation, the petitioner has been paid 90% of his pension and gratuity and 10% remains due. The said 90%, which has been paid is the provisional pension and gratuity. Pension of the petitioner was not finalized and the balance has not been paid on the ground that he was implicated in a criminal case. Till the criminal case was pending, the respondents were well within their jurisdiction to release 90% of pension and gratuity provisionally. It is also admitted that now the petitioner stands acquitted. Once the petitioner stands acquitted, the respondents should pay his entire pension and gratuity after finalizing the same. Pendency of acquittal appeal filed by the State or any other party cannot come in the way of finalizing the pension and gratuity of the petitioner nor can the respondents refuse to pay full pension and gratuity to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of the acquittal appeal. 6. Since as on date the petitioner stands acquitted, the respondents are directed to pay full pension and gratuity to the petitioner, after finalizing the same on the basis of calculating/re-fixing the same in the light of the pay revision recommendations effective from time to time. The said payment should be made within 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02