Point of Law: It is well settled by a catena of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court that gratuity and pensions are not bounties. An employee earn these benefits by dint of his long continuous, faithful and unblemish service.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh appearing for the State/respondents.

2. This Writ Proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is being instituted by the petitioner -Sri Manik Chandra Dutta, praying for following relief(s):-

(1) To issue direction to the respondent authorities, to pay the salary of the petitioner, with all cumulative benefits, w.e.f. 22.10.1997 to 30.06.2017, on which date he had superannuated.

(2) To issue direction to the respondent authorities to process and pay the pensionary and other gratuity benefits, due to him.

(3) To pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present writ petition is adumbrated herein below :-

“The petitioner herein joined in the Arunachal Pradesh Police, in the rank of constable, on 02.11.1978. After his joining, the petitioner served at various places of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, like Kalaktang in West Kameng District, Roing of Lower Dibang Valley District, Changlang and Miao in Changlang District, etc. While he was serving in Miao, the petitioner was transferred to Diyun in Changlang District, in the month of March, 1990. And thereafter, while he was serving in Diyun, he was transferred to Daporijo, vide order No.PHQ/ESTT-A/145/93, dated 13.04.1993.

However, the petitioner could not join at Daporijo immediately, due to advance stage of pregnancy of his wife and also due his medical condition. Thereafter, the petitioner joined at Daporijo on 29.10.1997, however his joining report was not accepted by the Superintendent of Police, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo and instead the petitioner was referred to the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh for further necessary action.

Accordingly, on reporting at the Police Headquarter at Itanagar, the petitioner was informed that a Departmental Proceeding vide order dated 28.06.1994, has been initiated against the petitioner for remaining absent from duty and joining of the petitioner would be decided after completion of the Departmental Proceeding. Thereafter, in the month of December, 1998, the Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of the petitioner and other witnesses. However, no further order was passed and the Departmental Proceeding was kept pending for around 23 years, without any valid reason. Thereafter, consequent to the sending of an E-mail, by the petitioner’s daughter, dated 25.01.2017 to the Director General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh, the Departmental Proceeding was re-opened and vide the order dated 22.05.2017, the Superintendent of Police, Daporijo imposed the punishment of withholding of two service increments with cumulative effect, treating the period of unauthorized absence, w.e.f. 18.05.1993 to 21.10.1997, as extra-ordinary leave. And financial benefit, whatsoever he was entitled to, has not been paid to the him for the unauthorized period on the principle of “No Duty No Pay” basis. However, the petitioner has neither been paid his salary w.e.f. 22.10.1997 till his superannuation on 30.06.2017, nor the petitioner’s pensionary benefits, due to him has been paid till date.”

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court, by filing the present Writ Petition, praying for relief(s) as aforesaid.

5. The respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 have jointly filed an affidavit-in-opposition denying the assertions made in the petition. It is stated that the petitioner was serving at Diyun Police Station in the year 1993. Thereafter, pursuant to an order No.PHQ/ESTT-A/145/CONST/93, he was transferred from Diyun Police Station to Daporijo Police Station and the Superintendent of Police, Changlang, vide order No.CAPP/TP-8/90, dated 10.05.1993, had released him from his establishment, for enabling him to join at his new place of posting. Thereafter, the petitioner did not report at Dap