Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2916 (JHR)

SUDHIR KUMAR SINHA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

LPA/22/2024 · 2025-04-15

Rajesh Shankar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:11389-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.22 of 2024 Sudhir Kumar Sinha, S/o Late Shyamnarayan Sinha, R/o Flat No.103, Gulmohar Apartment, Modi Compound, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S.-Lalpur, District-Ranchi. ... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. Under Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate For the Res.-State: Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V Mr. Raunak Sahay, A.C. to G.P.-V For the Res. No.4: Ms. Richa Sanchita, Advocate Ms. Suman Roy, Advocate --------- 06/Dated: 15.04.2025 M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgement dated 9.10.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.6257 of 2022. 3. In the said judgment, leaned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant in which the petitioner has questioned Memo No.1753(S), dated 13.05.2022 withholding 10% pension of the petitioner along with gratuity and commutation of pension on the ground that the petitioner was an accused in a criminal case which was pending as on the date of his retirement on 2025:JHHC:11389-DB 31.12.2021 on the basis of Rule 43(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules which came in effect from 23.07.2018. 4. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has held that Rule 43(c) permits the respondents to withhold the pensionary benefits if there is any criminal case pending against an employee who has retired. 5. Since the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner as on the date of his retirement has not been disputed by the counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be said that learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the petitioner’s writ petition. 6. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed. No costs. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Satish/Vikas/Cp.2