2025:JHHC: 35499 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.6079 of 2025 ----- Santosh Kumar Banerjee, S/o Late Sudhir Chandra Banerjee, R/o Qr. No.DK-4/ 69 Domgarh, Sindri, P.O. and P.S. Sindri, District Dhanbad .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2.The Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad, through the Municipal Commissioner, Bank More, Dhanbad 3.The Executive Officer, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Sindri Anchal, Sindri, Dhanbad … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, AC to G.P.-I For the Resp(s) : Mr. Santosh Jha, Advocate …...... 03 / 17.11.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following relief:- (A) To fix the pay scale of the petitioner at the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- on the basis of 6th pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006 by extending the permissible monetary benefits at par with the Jharkhand State Government employees. (B) To pay the due salary of the petitioner for the period of suspension w.e.f. 30.11.1993 to February, 2002 and from May, 2004 to 30.04.2007, when the petitioner has been superannuated from the services under the respondents as "Work Sarkar", during which period, the petitioner had been kept under suspension connection in with his involvement in Sindri P.S. Case No. 133 of 1993, registered for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, in which the petitioner has been acquitted vide order / judgment dated 15.06.2023, passed by this Hon'ble Court in Cr. Revision No. 858 of 2012 and also in view of the order dated 25.09.2001 passed by Deputy Collector-cum-Inquiry Officer, Dhanbad in departmental proceeding, wherein the petitioner has been exonerated from all the charges and also in view of the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2010, passed by the Learned Sub-Judge-VI, Dhanbad, in Title Suit No. 124 of 1993, in favour of the petitioner, which entitled the petitioner to get the full salary for the period of suspension under the principle of Rule 97 (2) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016, Ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416. (C) To assess and pay the full post retiral benefits of the petitioner after fixing his pay scale in proper fitment, extending the benefits of 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th pay revision and ACP / MACP minus the amount of Rs. 2,76,070/-, which has been paid to the petitioner at the pay scale of Rs. 1475/-, vide letter no. 256 dated 18.05.2016 in R.T.I. Appeal No. 1180 of 2014, supported by an affidavit dated 13.05.2016 by respondent no.3 during the proceeding of RTI Appeal made by the petitioner in the year of 2016. (D) To pay the arrears of pension as well as of current pension from the date retirement of the petitioner on 30.04.2007 till the date of actual payment along with interest @ 12% p.a. upon the due amount of pension in the light of the order /judgment dated 14.12.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. No. 459 of 2018 (Bisheshwar Nand Goswami Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Another) and also considering the Ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay L. Malhotra Vs. State of U.P. & Others, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 687, in which a simple interest @ 18% per annum has been directed to to the retired be paid Government servant and also the Ratio decided in the case of D.D. Tiwari (dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Limited & Others, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894, in which a simple interest @ 9% per annum has been directed to be paid to the retired Government servant and also the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kapila Hingorani Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 1. (E) To quash that part of the office order dated 10.07.2023 as contained in memo no. 1584 (Annexure-10), issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation (respondent no.2), whereby it has been stated that as per letter no. 301 dated 23.09.2013, issued by the respondent no.3, a sum of Rs. 42,500/-, which was deducted from the provident fund of the petitioner, has been paid to him by way of full and final amount of provident fund (though the said amount has not been paid up till now), and as such, no pension is payable to the petitioner, denial of which is absolutely arbitrary, illegal, misconceived and false accordingly the respondents may be directed to pay the amount of pension to the petitioner in terms of Rule 43 and 44 of Bihar (now Jharkhand) Municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1987 as per the Ratio decided by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Bisheshwar Nand Goswami Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and Another, in L.P.A. No. 459 of 2018, vide order dated 14.12.2020. (F) To pay the cost of litigation, damages and exemplary cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner apart from simple interest of 18% per annum upon the amount payable to him by way of salary and retiral dues and pensionary benefits, etc. 3. The grievance of the petitioner can be addressed by the respondents at the first instance. For which the petitioner also filed the representation in this regard. 4. Considering the nature of this relief which the petitioner sought for, according to my opinion, it is the respondents who has to first decide the claim of the petitioner, considering his entitlement as per law. 5. Thus, I direct the petitioner to file a detail representation before the respondent No.2, who will consider the case of the petitioner as per law and if it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any relief, should extended the same to the petitioner. If the claim or any part of the claim of the petitioner is refused, the detail reasons for refusal should also be communicated to the petitioner. 6. The entire process should be concluded within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with representation. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 17th November, 2025 R.S./