Retiral benefits cannot be withheld solely based on pending criminal charges unrelated to an employee’s official duties, as they are vested rights earned through service.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prays for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the respondent authorities to release his retiral/service dues including gratuity, General Insurance Scheme, Leave Encashment and Provident Fund, as he has retired on 30.06.2021. The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:–

“10.1 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to release the retiral dues including gratuity, GIS, leave encashment and provident fund deposits along with an interest to the tune of 9% per annum.

10.2 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to calculate the retiral dues under all the relevant heads after applying the annual increments on due occasions in light of the order dated 04.02.2017 (Annexure P/3).

10.3 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Patwari and had been serving for the last 20 years with an unblemished service record. Subsequently, Criminal Case No.61/2015 came to be registered at Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) on 31.03.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, the said case has no nexus with the service of the petitioner. Thereafter, by order dated 09.06.2021, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The said criminal case was registered against the petitioner along with one Lokesh Gupta and Smt. Sunita Gupta, who happens to be his sister-in-law and wife of his brother Ramesh Kumar Gupta. The case pertains to the business of a rice mill owned and operated by Smt. Sunita Gupta under the name and style of M/s Matritva Mini Rice Mill. The allegations relate to variation in depositing certain funds of the rice mill. The petitioner asserts that he has no concern whatsoever with the affairs of the said rice mill. The trial of the said case is still pending. Meanwhile, when the petitioner retired on 30.06.2021, his retiral benefits were withheld by the respondents solely on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. Since the said case is not related to his service, the withholding of retiral benefits is contrary to law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has no connection with his official duties as a Patwari and pertains entirely to the private business of his sister-in-law. Therefore, withholding of his retiral dues is unsustainable. Reliance has been placed upon judgments of the Rajasthan High Court and the Bombay High Court to contend that once an employee retires, retiral dues cannot be withheld merely because an FIR has been registered, if such FIR is unrelated to the discharge of his official duties. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of Mahesh Chandra Soni v. State of Rajasthan , 2024 (3) LAWS (Raj) 2 as well as the judgment rendered by the High Court of Bombay in the matter of Sau Sheela Rameshchandra Bargaje v. The Administrative Officer and others passed in Writ Petition No. 12817/2017 decided on 29.10.2021, to buttress his submissions.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel