The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 14 of the 1971 Rules, which denies pension to government servants convicted of charges involving moral turpitude.

JUDGMENT :

SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.

1. The short point in issue in this writ petition arises out of the claim of the petitioner for disbursement of full pensionary benefits with effect from his superannuation on 1st September, 2004, including other terminal benefits such as gratuity.

2. The petitioner was in service as Lecturer in Zoology at a Non-Government Women's College affiliated to the University of Burdwan (for short hereinafter referred to only as the College and the University respectively). The petitioner claims to have joined service in 1972 and, during service, was in receipt of revised University Grants Commission (UGC) scales of pay which came into effect from 1st of January 1986.

3. On the 3rd of January 1988, the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case under Sections 498 A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of such implication the pension disbursing authority, viz. the State respondents, invoked Rule 14 of the West Bengal Services (Death Cum Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 (for short the 1971 Rules) which, inter alia, reads as follows:

"14. Criminal proceedings- A Government servant who retires from service but against whom criminal proceeding involving moral turpitude are pending in a court of law, shall not be sanctioned any pension until the termination of the criminal proceedings. An interim allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the pension that granted during the pendency of such proceedings in cases of hardship. If he is convicted on a criminal charge involving moral turpitude he shall not be entitled to any pension; compassionate allowance may be granted subject to the same terms and conditions as laid down in rule 12."

4. On the pillar of Rule 14 the pension disbursing authority has now taken the stand that since the petitioner retired from service with a conviction under Section 498A IPC in a criminal trial presently pending under appeal and, the conviction is one arising out of "moral turpitude", pension cannot be sanctioned applying Rule 14 .

5. Thus the petitioner has only become eligible during the interregnum pending conclusion of the criminal proceeding to an interim allowance following Rules 14 and 12 of the 1971 Rules to obviate any hardship.

6. Reiterating the legal principle underscored by Rule 14 , Mr. Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5/the Office of the Accountant General, West Bengal and Mr. Vaisy, Learned State Counsel, submit that the right to receive pension is not unfettered. Arguing that the intention of Rule 14 is clear, that is to deny pension in respect of persons convicted on a charge involving moral turpitude, in the facts of the present case it is evident that the petitioner stood convicted with two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine under Section 498A IPC. The gravity of the charges stands underpinned by the judgement of the Learned Trial Court holding the petitioner as a contributor to the death of his wife by torture.

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that from the lengthy discussion by the Learned Trial Court it can be found that Sessions Trial No.15 of 1991 which was originally started under Sections 498A/302/306/34 IPC resulted in the sentencing of the petitioner under Section 498A although acquitted under Section 302 in the absence of proof of charge beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before this Hon'ble Court which was filed in 1998 and, has taken no steps in the appeal for the past two decades instead preferring to remain enlarged on bail. Learned Counsel for the Respondents therefore submit that the petitioner is not yet free of the stain of moral turpitude arising out of the conviction. In such view of the matter, the rigour imposed by Rule 14 of the 1971 Rules binds the petitioner still.

8. Mr. Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel, further emphasises on the authority AIR 1963 SC 1313 (at paragraphs 7 and 8 thereof), that the application of statutory Rules in a given factual matrix by the Stat