Judges : SREEDHARAN
George - Appellant
Versus
Tahsildar, Cochin - Respondent
Case No : O.P.No. 9233 of 1991
Decided On : 08/14/1992
Advocates Appeared :
N.N. Sugunapalan For Petitioner Govt. Pleader (V.K. Mohammed Youseff) For Respondent
Retirement Benefits - Village Officer - Rule 3-A of Part III K.S.R. - [FACT OF THE CASE] Petitioner, a Village Officer, retired on 30-4-1991 and was suspended on 29-4-1991 for alleged misconduct. He filed a petition seeking mandamus for retirement benefits. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the misconduct alleged did not result in pecuniary loss to the government, and therefore, Rule 3-A did not apply. The petitioner was entitled to full pension and Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity. [ISSUES] The key issue was whether Rule 3-A applied to the petitioner's case. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court interpreted Rule 3-A and held that it only applies to proceedings for recovering pecuniary loss to the government. [FINAL DECISION] The court directed the respondents to disburse the retirement benefits due to the petitioner with interest.
Petitioner was a Village Officer. He retired from service on superannuation on 30-4-1991. On 29-4-1991, he, along with four others, was placed under suspension on the allegation that they demanded Rs.400/- from one Mr. Lineshah, S/o. Pushkaran for taking steps to conduct 'Pokku Varavu'. Petitioner was not given his retirement benefits. So, he has moved this Original Petition inter alia praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to sanction and disburse provisional pension pending criminal prosecution and also the gratuity amount due to him.
2. Along with the Original petition, petitioner moved C.M.P. 15676/1991. On 21-2-1992, this Court ordered:-
"Statement dated 16-1-1992 is silent about the disbursement of the D.C.R.G. due to the petitioner. By order dated 6-1-92, respondents were directed to file statement showing reason why the retirement benefits should not carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum. No justifiable reason has been given for withholding the amount covered by D.C.R.G. Since the statement is silent about that aspect, I order that the amount of D.C.R.O. will carry interest at 18% per annum till date of payment".
On 17-6-1992, this Court directed the District Collector to file a statement regarding the present position of the alleged vigilance enquiry against the petitioner within ten days. District Collector has not cared to comply with this direction.
3. On behalf of respondents, statement dated 19-3-1992 has been filed. The contention taken therein is to the following effect-Petitioner was involved in a criminal case resulting from an attempt of collect the illegal gratification. He is being proceeded against under the Prevention of Corruption Act. As provided in R.3-AofPartIIIK.S.R.,petitioner is entitled only to provisional pension until the proceedings initiated are finalised. Rule 3-A provides that no Dealh-Cum-Rclircmcnt Gratuity shall be paid to a delinquent officer until the conclusion of such proceeding and issue of final orders thereon. In this view, petitioner has not yet become entitled to Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity. There is no exception to Rule 3-A. The moment criminal proceeding or departmental proceeding is initiated, the bar under R.3A comes into operation. So, petitioner is not entitled to claim Death-Cum Retirement Gratuity. Nor is he entitled to interest on that amount.
4. Subsequent to the filing of this Original Petition, provisional pension payable to the petitioner has been fixed at Rs.484/- per month. Provisional pension, at that rate, is being paid to him regularly. No amount by way of Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity has been disbursed to him. Reason for the non-disbursement of Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity is the pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Reliance has been made to R.3-A of Part III K.S.R. in support of the contention that Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity can be paid only after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against him. So, the short question that arises for consideration is whether Rule 3-A is attracted to the facts of this case.
5. Rule 3-A starts by saying:
"Where any departmental or judicial proceeding is instituted under R.3 or where a departmental proceeding is continued under clause (a) of the proviso thereto,".
This means that Rule 3-A can apply only to those departmental or judicial proceedings initiated under R.3 of Part III or clause (a) to the proviso to that rule. For understanding the scope of the departmental or judicial proceedings coming within the purview of R.3-A,one has therefore to refer to R.3. For a proper understanding of R.3,1 read the same together with clause (a) of its proviso:
"3. The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judici
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.