Judicial proceedings referred to in Clause 19(5) of the West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981, must have a nexus with the duties discharged by the employee in the normal course of his employment.

Debangsu Basak, J.

The petitioner seeks retirement benefit.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that, although the petitioner was convicted in a criminal case under Sections 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, he is entitled to retirement benefits. He had reached the age of superannuation on April 13, 2014. On an appeal preferred from the order of conviction, the High Court had suspended the execution of the sentence. The petitioner had been granted bail by the Appeal Court.

3. Relying upon 2014 2 CHN 103 (Anandi Prasad Mahato v. State of West Bengal) and the judgment and order dated July 9, 2015 passed in W.P. No. 9890(W) of 2015 (Prafulla Chandra Mahato v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) it is submitted that, pendency of a criminal case is not a valid ground for withholding of terminal benefit of a Government employee.

4. The State and the Council authorities are represented.

5. It is contended on behalf of the Council that, the petitioner is governed by the West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981. In chapter V Rule 19(5) thereof the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits during the pendency of a judicial proceedings. The Appeal has not been disposed of as yet. The provisions of West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981 have not been considered in Anandi Prasad Mahato (supra).

6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.

7. The petitioner was a primary teacher. He was an accused in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2003 and Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2003. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order of conviction dated November 28, 2003. Such appeal was admitted. An application for grant of bail in connection with the appeal was disposed of by an Order dated April 4, 2005. The petitioner has been enlarged on appeal. The execution of the sentence has been suspended to pending the appeal. The petitioner was suspended by a Memo bearing No. 4049(1) dated February 1, 2004. The petitioner claims that subsequent to the order of suspension, he had applied for withdrawal of suspension in view of the grant of bail by the Appeal Court. However, such suspension was not withdrawn. The petitioner had reached the age of superannuation on April 30, 2014. He had made a representation dated December 16, 2014 for release of terminal retirement benefits. He had made a further representation on August 31, 2015.

8. The authorities have not demonstrated that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner has any nexus with the duties required to be discharged by the petitioner as a teacher.

9. Chapter IV of the West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981 provides that an employee governed thereby shall be entitled to pension subject to satisfactory service and either criteria laid down therein. Two conditions are required to be mandatorily fulfilled by an employee governed by the Scheme of 1981 to receive pension. One is satisfactory service and the other is the period of service qualifying such employee to be entitled to pension.

10. Chapter V of the DCRB Scheme, 1981 deals with the rate of pension. Clause 19(5) of the DCRB Scheme, 1981 provides as follows:-

“19(5) Final pension, gratuity etc., shall not be sanctioned to an employee against whom department/judicial proceedings have been instituted/ continued. In case of misconduct of the pensioner, the pension sanctioning authority has the power to withhold pension or reduce the pension.

Where any department or judicial proceeding is instituted or where a departmental proceedings is continued against an employee who has retired on attaining the age of compulsory retirement or otherwise, he shall be paid duri