SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Raj) 2239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
MADHAV SINGH - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 19552 of 2013
Decided On : 05-05-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. M. C. Taylor, Mr. R.M. Bairwa, Ms. Vandana Chauhan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. B.K. Sharma, Advocate.

The release of terminal benefits to the family of a deceased government servant is subject to the government servant's status at the time of demise and any pending disciplinary proceedings.

Headnote:

Death Gratuity - Government Servant - Rule 55, 90(1)(c) of the Pension Rule of 1996 - Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Services Rules

Fact of the Case:

The deceased government employee was convicted for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. His children sought death gratuity and other terminal benefits after his demise, which were denied by the respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the pay fixation and release of death gratuity and leave encashment benefits, but declined to order the release of salary for the suspension period due to the pending conviction and departmental enquiry.

Issues: Denial of death gratuity and other terminal benefits to the deceased government employee's family due to his conviction and pending departmental enquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: The release of death gratuity and leave encashment benefits is permissible if the government servant was in service and not under suspension. However, the release of payment for the suspension period requires a specific order, which the court declined to pass due to the pending conviction and departmental enquiry.

Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed, directing the pay fixation, release of death gratuity, and leave encashment benefits, but declining the release of salary for the suspension period.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

Both petitioners are children of one Mr. Suresh Chandra Shekhawat, who was Sanitary Inspector Grade-2 Nagar Prarishad, Bharapur, and expired on 22nd September, 2009.

2. Brief facts deserve to be noted are that the petitioners' father, while in service, was convicted for offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and allegation against him was that he abated his wife to commit suicide. The conviction order was passed on 24.06.95 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake in Sessions Case No. 48/1992. The deceased employee, who had been earlier reinstated during the pendency of the criminal case, was again suspended by the Municipal Corporation upon his conviction. The deceased employee moved an application for suspension of sentence, which was allowed by Appellate Court and thereupon, he was again reinstated in service by the respondents.

3. While in services, he expired and the appeal, which was pending against his conviction and sentence, was thereafter abated. In the aforesaid circumstances and in view of the fact that the deceased employee was in service on the day when he expired, his children approached the respondents claiming death gratuity in terms of Rule 55 as well as other terminal benefits, which a deceased Government Servant is entitled to including leave encashment, which was in his credit on the day when he expired, as also the intervening salary of the suspension period as the suspension period had not been regularized during his life time. Having been denied the same by the respondents, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners praying for the same relief.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no embargo under Rule 55 of the Pension Rules for denying death gratuity to the family members of deceased employee only on the ground that appeal is pending against the conviction, more so when the concerned deceased government employee was in service and was performing his duty on the day when he expired.

5. It is further submitted that the respondents have not taken any steps in regard to the relief prayed for on the ground of conviction of the deceased employee. There was a charge sheet pending against the deceased government employee and that remained pending up to his death and no decision was taken on the said departmental enquiry. Thus, it is pointed out that on the day when father of the petitioners expired, there was no embargo for releasing his gratuity or other terminal benefits.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that since there was already conviction recorded by the court of competent jurisdiction against the father of the petitioners, the petitioner could not have been given any terminal benefits due to him, however upon specific query by this Court it is admitted that on the day when he expired, the deceased was in service after having been reinstated upon the sentence having been suspended by the Appellate Court.

7. Counsel also states that the departmental enquiry was pending against the father of the petitioners on the day he expired. However, it is admitted at bar that after he expired, the departmental enquiry was dropped in the normal course.

8. Considering the submissions of both the counsel and perused the material on record.

9. The relevant provision of Rule 55, 90(1)(C) of the Pension Rule of 1996 deserves to be quoted below, which reads thus:

Rule 55:-

Retirement/Death Gratuity :-

(1) (a) A Government servant, who has completed five years qualifying service and has become eligible for service gratuity or pension under Rule 54 shall, on his retirement, be granted retirement gratuity equal to one-fourth of his emoluments for each completed six monthly period of qualifying service, subject to a maximum of 16 times the emoluments.

(b) If a Government servant dies while in service, the de
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top