Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.
Fayjul Islam, S/o. Late Mayazuddin Sheikh – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Through The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Pension And Public Grievance Cell, Dispur Guwahati & 3 Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.4060 Of 2020
Decided On : 13-12-2022
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d), (1)(e), (2) - Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 - Rule 21, (b), (c) - Retirement from Service - Entitled to Receive Pensionery Benefits - After retirement from service, petitioner is being paid provisional pension, but final pension had been withheld – Held, Under Rule 21 of Rules of 1969, as no judicial proceeding had been initiated against petitioner nor such proceeding can be initiated in respect of any cause or event that took place prior to four years of such institution, entitlement of petitioner to pensionery benefits cannot be withheld or withdrawn by respondent authorities by referring to Rule 21 of Rules of 1969 - Accordingly, petitioner is held to be entitled to receive his complete pensionery benefits under Rules of 1969 - Respondents are accordingly directed to process final pension of petitioner and bring same to its logical end within a period of two months from date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. KP Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Ms. R Bora, learned counsel for the respondents in the Agriculture Department, Mr. JK Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 3 being the authorities in the Pension and Public Grievance Department and Mr. RK Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 being the Accountant General (A&E), Assam.
2. The petitioner, who was an Executive Engineer (Agriculture) in the Agriculture Department of the Government of Assam, retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2019. It is stated that after retirement from service, the petitioner is being paid the provisional pension, but the final pension had been withheld. With the aforesaid grievance, this writ petition is instituted.
3. The respondents in the agriculture department refers to ACB Case No. 08/2012 under sections 13(1)(d)/13(1)(e)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that had been registered against the petitioner and takes a stand that because of the registration of the aforesaid ACB Case No. 08/2012, the pension of the petitioner had been withheld in exercise of the powers under Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (in short Rules of 1969).
4. In the circumstance, we examine the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969, which is extracted as below:-
(a) such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the office, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service.
Explanation- The continuation of the proceeding after the final retirement of the officer shall be automatic under sub-rule (a) of Rule 21 and no fresh decision of the Governor and/or the Appointing authority nor any show-cause notice to the person concerned shall be necessary.
The powers under rule 21 shall be exercisable not only in case of causing pecuniary loss to Government but also in all other cases”];
(b) such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor of Assam,
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and
(iii) more be concluded by such authority and in such place as the Governor of Assam may direct and in accordance with procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service;
(c) no such judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and
(d) the Assam Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed.
Explanation- For the purpose of this rule-
(a) a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the officer or pensioner, or if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and
(b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted-
(i)
The right to receive pension and retirement benefits is a valuable right vested in a government servant, protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that the paym....
Pension is a property right that cannot be withheld without lawful authority; withholding based on proceedings initiated post-retirement is unlawful, and interest must be paid for delays in disbursem....
Pension is a right of an employee and cannot be withheld without a proper inquiry and findings of misconduct; mere allegations or pending criminal cases are insufficient grounds for such action.
Inordinate delay in departmental proceedings affecting pension rights can warrant judicial intervention for timely resolution, but does not automatically terminate the proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
