The High Court of Jharkhand reaffirms that pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral dues are vested rights and cannot be withheld merely because criminal cases are pending; this judgment upholds Supreme Court and Full Bench precedents and is binding on all subordinate courts in Jharkhand while serving as persuasive authority elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/482/2024 of RANCHI UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR , BINOD NARAYAN Vs SHANTI DEVI |
| CNR | JHHC010246782024 |
| Date of Registration | 13-09-2024 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Rajesh Shankar, J. (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Bench | Division Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on Jharkhand subordinate courts; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Service law (retiral benefits/pension) |
| Questions of Law | Whether pendency of criminal proceedings can bar payment of retiral benefits—including pension, gratuity, group insurance and leave encashment—to a government servant who has neither been convicted nor punished. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that pension is not a bounty at the government’s pleasure but a vested right—deferred salary linked to service. Gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral dues form part of salary and cannot be withheld in the absence of conviction or imposed punishment. Interim suspension or ongoing departmental or criminal proceedings do not justify withholding of any part of retiral benefits. The judgment follows Supreme Court’s decision in Deoki Nandan Prasad (1971) and the Jharkhand Full Bench in Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (2007) and its subsequent larger-Bench clarification (18-03-2025) that leave encashment is salary. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The respondent served as a temporary lecturer from 1984, was transferred and deputed, joined JPSC in 2003, granted leave and absorbed in Ranchi University, suspended in 2011 upon arrest by Vigilance, repeatedly reinstated and suspended, compulsorily retired in 2019 under Section 67 of the Jharkhand State University Act, and after representations obtained PF but not pension and other retiral dues. A writ petition challenging withholding of pension, gratuity and leave encashment was allowed by the writ Court. |
| Citations | 2025:JHHC:25056-DB; (1971) 2 SCC 330; 2007 (4) JCR 1; Judgment of larger Bench (JhHC) dated 18-03-2025 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; the Supreme Court |
| Follows | Deoki Nandan Prasad v. Union of India; Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey Full Bench; Jharkhand larger Bench (2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Pension and gratuity cannot be withheld merely because criminal proceedings are pending against the employee, absent conviction or disciplinary punishment.
- Leave encashment is a component of “salary” and thus a vested right once due, per Jharkhand larger Bench.
- Suspension revocation does not affect the entitlement to any portion of retiral benefits already vested.
- Compulsory retirement under statutory provisions does not suspend accrual of deferred salary rights.
- Lawyers can rely on this judgment to resist any administrative attempt to withhold pension or gratuity for non-convicted officers.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Pension is a “valuable right vested in a Government servant,” not a bounty at pleasure (Deoki Nandan Prasad).
- Gratuity and leave encashment form part of deferred salary; suspension or pendency of criminal/departmental proceedings does not empower withholding (Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey Full Bench).
- A larger Bench (18-03-2025) confirmed leave encashment as salary and held it admissible unless dismissal has occurred.
- The writ Court correctly applied these precedents to direct fixation of pension under 6th and 7th pay revisions and release of gratuity, leave encashment, and other dues.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (University)
- The writ Court’s findings are perverse and legally untenable.
- Pendency of serious criminal allegations justified withholding of retiral benefits.
Respondent (Employee)
- She was never convicted; all suspension orders were revoked.
- Pension and other retiral benefits are statutory entitlements and cannot be denied due to ongoing proceedings.
Factual Background
Respondent joined B.N.J. College as a temporary lecturer in 1984 and later served on deputation and in JPSC. Arrested by Vigilance in 2011, she was suspended and reinstated multiple times. In December 2018 the University ordered her compulsory retirement under Section 67 of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000. She received her PF but not pension, gratuity or leave encashment, prompting a writ petition that was allowed in her favor.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 67, Jharkhand State University Act, 2000: Compulsory retirement procedure.
- Rule 43(a)&(b), Bihar Pension Rules: No power to withhold pension or gratuity during pendency of proceedings.
- F.D. Memo No. P.C.2-9-8/81/2150/b (19.07.1984) & Memo No. PC-Miss-50/97/4158/V (05.05.1998): Leave encashment recognized as salary.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissent; both judges concurred in affirming established precedents and dismissing the appeal.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed
Citations
- 2025:JHHC:25056-DB
- Deoki Nandan Prasad v. Union of India, (1971) 2 SCC 330
- Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand, 2007 (4) JCR 1
- Jharkhand High Court larger Bench decision dated 18-03-2025