(2026:JHHC:12229-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 399 of 2024 (with I.A. No. 6548 of 2024 and I.A. No. 2407 of 2025) 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi at Nepal House, P.O & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi 2. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi at Nepal House, P.O & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi ... …. … Appellants Versus 1. Jai Kishore Choudhary, aged about 68 hears, son of Late Ram Padarath Choudhary, resident of village Barri Behta, P.O. Barri Behta, P.S. Pupri, District Sitamarhi, Bihar 2. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Boring Road, Patna, P.O & P.S. Patna, District Patna, Bihar 3. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, P.O & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi ... … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants: Mr Ratnesh Kumar, S.C(L&C)-I For the Resp. No. 2: Mr S.P. Roy, G.A (State of Bihar) For the Resp. No. 3: Mr Rohit Sinha, Advocate --------- Order No. 09/Dated: 27.04.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This LPA challenges the learned Single Judge’s order dated 17.02.2024 allowing the 1st respondent’s W.P (S) No. 5389 of 2021 and quashing the portion of the order dated 10.12.2020 concerning deduction of 5% pension payable to the petitioner for a period of one year. The consequential review order dated 09.06.2021 was also quashed and set aside. (2026:JHHC:12229-DB ) 3. There is delay of 100 days in instituting this appeal. Therefore, notice was issued upon the 1st respondent. Despite several opportunities, the appellant State claimed that they have not been able to serve the 1st respondent. 4. Records disclose that this appeal was filed on 26.06.2024. As usual, the same was filed with defects. Again, as usual, much time was spent in seeking adjournments to clear the defects and ultimately, after considerable delay, defects were cleared. All this while, though there was no interim reliefgranted by the Court, learned Single Judge’s order was not complied with. 5. On 28.01.2026, notice was issued to the 1st respondent, returnable on 24.02.2026 with directions to take immediate steps for service. Still, the requisites for service of notice were filed only on 11.03.2026 i.e. beyond the returnable date. On 23.03.2026, because it was not clear whether the 1st respondent was served or not, the matter was adjourned to 01st of April 2026.On 01st of April 2026, again the matter was adjourned to 06th of April, 2026. 6. On 06.04.2026, upon noticing that the 1st respondent was still not served, we were constrained to pass the following order: “1. Despite opportunities, the 1st respondent is not served. 2. The 1st respondent is a pensioner of the appellants and, therefore, it should not be difficult for the appellants to serve the 1st respondent. 3. On the ground of pendency of this appeal, the appellants are not complying with the order of the learned Single Judge. This is not correct. Since there is a delay in service upon the 1st respondent, the least that we expect is compliance to the learned (2026:JHHC:12229-DB ) Single Judge’s order without prejudice to the contentions raised in this appeal. 4. The learned S.C. (L&C)-I to report on the status of compliance. If by chance, there is no compliance, learned counsel should inform us the name of the Secretary of the concerned Department responsible for compliance. 5. List the matter on 27th of April 2026, for completion of service and reporting compliance. 6. At this stage, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar states that the appellants will deposit the amount as directed by the learned Single Judge in this Court on or before the next date. 7. The statement is accepted. 8. The amount must be deposited on or before the next date consistent with the statement now made. 9. At the same time, all efforts must be made to serve the 1st respondent expeditiously.” 7. Today, when the matter has come up again, it is reported that the 1st respondent has not been served. 8. In this case, though the routine reasons, which are not very convincing, have been given to seek condonation of the 100-day delay, considering that the delay is not very unreasonable, we would have condoned the same. However, even after condoning the delay, we find that the appellant's action in this case is not consistent with the law laid down by this Court in its order dated 17.03.2026, disposing of LPA No. 358 of 2025. Thus, there would be no point in adjourning the matter with a view to granting more dates only to serve the 1st respondent, thereafter, to condone the delay and finally, discover that the appellants have no case on merits, inter alia, given this Court’s above-referred order in LPA No. 358 of 2025. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, tried to submit that this was not a case of fresh proceedings and the delay, if any, was on account of quashing of the earlier penalty and the remand of the matter (2026:JHHC:12229-DB ) to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh action in accordance with law. He submitted that it was a case that originated in the State of Bihar, and that there was a considerable delay in the State of Bihar sending the case papers to the State of Jharkhand. He submitted that under such circumstances, the bar of limitation under the proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules would not be attracted. 10. The above contention cannot be accepted. Firstly, at this stage, no distinction can be made between the action taken by the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. This is a matter which commenced before the formation of the State of Jharkhand, and therefore, the previous action was taken by the State of Bihar. 11. The action taken by the State of Bihar was faulted because, though the Inquiry Officer had exonerated the 1st respondent, the Disciplinary Authority, without even minimum compliance with the principles of natural justice and the statutory rules, proceeded to impose a penalty. This penalty was challenged before the Patna High Court, which quashed the penalty for failure to comply with the principles of natural justice, and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to give notice to comply with those principles and then proceed in accordance with the law. 12. After considerable delay, an order was made to deduct 5% of the pension for a period of one year. This is because the 1strespondent retired on 31.10.2016. In imposing this penalty, the State of Jharkhand considered the alleged delay by the State of Bihar in forwarding the (2026:JHHC:12229-DB ) case papers. However, the direction for disposal of the proceedings within six months was observed only in breach. Even if the breaches were to be overlooked, there is still no case to contend that the bar of limitation imposed by the proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules would not be attracted. 13. For all the above reasons, we see no point in continuing with this matter. Even after the formal condonation of the 100-day delay on merits, we will have to dismiss this appeal. In any event, we note that the impugned order has quashed the penalty of the deduction of 5% of the pension for a period of one year. We do not think that there was any significant principle involved for which this appeal had to be instituted. Learned Single Judge has also decided the matter on the peculiar facts of this case, and we see no error in the impugned order. 14. For all the above reasons, we dismiss this appeal and dispose of the I.As herein. 15. Considering our order dated 06.04.2026, we were about to direct that the deposited amount be paid to the 1st respondent. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant states that the order has not been complied with because the Accountant General has been asked to provide details of the deductions. 16. This is most unfortunate. Our order was quite clear. We had also provided that,in case there is no compliance, the learned counsel should inform us of the name of the Secretary of the concerned department for such compliance. (2026:JHHC:12229-DB ) 17. The appellant State has neither sought any extension of time to comply nor disclosed the name of the concerned Secretary of the department responsible for the non-compliance. The learned counsel is quite reluctant to disclose the name of the Secretary of the concerned department. Accordingly, we will have no option but to issue notice to the Chief Secretary of the State, whose name we are quite familiar with. 18. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant states that the amount will be deposited in this Court by the 29th of April, 2026. Later, he dithered and said he was unable to say whether this amount would be deposited by the day after tomorrow. 19. Accordingly, we will have no option but to issue a notice of contempt to the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, whose name he now discloses. The name of the Principal Secretary is Mr Prashant Kumar. 20. Mr Prashant Kumar, Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, is directed to remain present in this Court on 29.04.2026 at 10.30 A.M with the amount which was required to be deposited in this Court in terms of our order dated 06.04.2026. 21. The State, in this case, by filling this appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation, by not clearing the objections and finally, by not effecting service on the 1st respondent for an unreasonable duration, has virtually succeeded in frustrating the relief obtained by the 1st respondent from the learned Single Judge. Since (2026:JHHC:12229-DB ) such cases are on the rise, we are constrained to view this matter seriously. 22. Mr Prashant Kumar may also file an affidavit explaining why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him. Such an affidavit should be filed when he appears before us on 29.04.2026 at 10.30 A.M. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to immediately inform the Principal Secretary about this order, even though the transcription and uploading of this order may take some time, i.e., up to tomorrow. 24. This will give the Principal Secretary sufficient time to file an affidavit and arrange for the deposit of this amount, which was denied to a pensioner who retired in 2016. 25. List this matter first on the board on 29th April 2026. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) April 27, 2026 N.A.F.R. Ranjeet/R.Kr./Cp.2 Uploaded on