Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1231

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Dr. Arup Jyoti Bhuyan, S/O- Lt. Ratneswar Bhuyan – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Rep. By The Comm. And Secy. To The Govt. Of Assam, Animal Husbandry And Veterinary Deptt. And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 1322 of 2023
Decided On : 22-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A K Baruah, Mr A Das, Mr. N Mahajan
For the Respondent: SC, AG, SC, A.H and V. DEPT.,GA, ASSAM

During the pendency of departmental or judicial proceedings against a retired government employee, the employee is entitled only to a provisional pension under Rule 22(1) of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, and is barred from receiving gratuity or regular pension until the proceedings conclude.

Headnote:(A) Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 - R. 21 and 22 - Retirement benefits - Withholding of pension and gratuity - Pending disciplinary proceedings - Whether a retired employee is entitled to regular pension and gratuity when departmental/judicial proceedings are pending - Principles: R. 21 empowers the Governor to withhold pension if an employee is found guilty of grave misconduct; however, R. 22(1) specifically operates during the interregnum of pendency of such proceedings, mandating the payment of provisional pension and prohibiting the release of gratuity or DCRG until conclusion of the proceedings. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired government servant, sought authorization for regular pension, gratuity, and other retirement benefits. At the time of his retirement, departmental and criminal proceedings were pending against him. The respondent authorities did not release his final pension and gratuity, citing the pendency of these proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while the petitioner is not entitled to regular pension and gratuity during the pendency of proceedings, he is entitled to other retirement benefits such as leave encashment and GIS. The authorities are directed to pay provisional pension and release arrears of subsistence allowance.

Issues: Whether the withholding of regular pension and gratuity is permissible under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, during the pendency of departmental or judicial proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisions of Rule 22(1) of the 1969 Rules take precedence over Rule 21 during the pendency of proceedings; while Rule 21 mandates withholding upon a finding of guilt, Rule 22 manages the interregnum by restricting payment to provisional pension and barring gratuity.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions to release admissible retirement benefits.

ORDER :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. A K Baruah, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Ms. M Kataki, Learned Standing Counsel, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary, Assam, appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Mr. R K Talukdar, Learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General (A&E), Assam, appearing for the Respondent No. 4 and Ms. K Phukan, Learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6.

2. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has prayed for a direction upon the Respondent authorities, to authorize to him, his regular pension, as well as, other pensionary benefits, including Gratuity, Leave Encashment, GIS, etc.

3. The facts in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issues, arising in the present Writ Petition, is noticed as under.

3.1. The Petitioner, while working as a Sub-Divisional Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Officer, came to be placed under arrest on 23.11.2021, in connection with Kokrajhar Police Station Case No. 817/2021. On the detention of the Petitioner, in connection with the said criminal case and he having remained under detention for more than 48 (Forty-Eight) hours, the Petitioner was, vide order dated 26.11.2021, placed under suspension by invoking the provisions of Rule 6 (2) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. The Petitioner was, thereafter, enlarged on bail by the Ld. Trial Court, vide order dated 29.12.2021.

3.2. The Petitioner was, thereafter, issued with a show-cause notice dated 12.01.2022, instituting against him, a departmental proceeding. The Petitioner, on 24.01.2022, submitted his show-cause reply. The Petitioner, thereafter, during the pendency of the said departmental proceeding, instituted against him, retired from his services on 31.12.2022. As the subsistence allowance of the Petitioner, w.e.f 23.02.2022 till 31.12.2022, as well as, non-finalization of his pension and pensionary benefits, the Petitioner has instituted the present Writ Petition.

4. Mr. A K Baruah, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the Petitioner was authorized a provisional pension, in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court, vide order dated 13.03.2023, in the present proceedings. Mr. A K Baruah, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner, having retired from his services on reaching the age of superannuation, he is entitled to be authorized his pension and pensionary benefits. Mr. A K Baruah, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent authorities, however, have not authorized to him his due pension and pensionary benefits.

4.1. By referring to the Provisions of Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1969), Mr. A K Baruah, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the power to withhold pension, is provided in the provisions of Rule 21 of the said Rules. He submits that the said power is reserved to the Governor and the power is permissible to be so exercised, only in the event, in a departmental or judicial proceeding, initiated against the retired Government Servant, he is found guilty of commission of misconduct or negligence, during his period of service, including services rendered upon re-employment after retirement. Mr. Baruah, submits that against the Petitioner, no such finding having been recorded in any departmental and/or judicial proceeding, as on the date of his superannuation, the provisions of Rule 21, was not permissible to be so invoked. He submits that even in the criminal proceedings, instituted against the Petitioner, the same is pending at the stage of investigation. As regards the departmental proceedings instituted against the Petitioner, vide the show-cause notice dated 12.01.2022, it is submitted that the said proceedings have also not been taken to its logical conclusion.

4.2. Accordingly, he submits that the withholding of the Petitioner’s pension and pens

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1231

Cases Referred (1)