IMPORTANT POINT
The withholding of pension and gratuity based on the pendency of criminal proceedings unrelated to official duties is illegal and arbitrary, as pension and gratuity are the earnings of an employee for services rendered and constitute a right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

“i) the impugned order dated 01.09.2023 passed by Assistant Engineer, Pension and Pensions Welfare Department for stopping of payment of pension and other retiral benefits to petitioner and the impugned actions of respondent authorities of non-payment of payment and other retiral benefits to humble petitioner may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set-aside;

ii) by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof respondents may kindly be directed to grant due pension & gratuity and other retiral and terminal benefits to humble petitioner at the rate of 12% per annum with consequential benefits.”

2. The basic issue before this Court is ‘Whether because of pendency of proceedings of a criminal case in regard to the offences under Sections 498A & 406 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the retiral benefits including gratuity and pension can be withheld by the authorities more particularly in a case when no departmental proceeding is pending against an employee ?’.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Male Nurse Grade-II on 17.01.1985 and he joined the duty on the very same day in the office of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Sikar. On the basis of recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘the DPC’) constituted in exercise of the provisions given under the Rules, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Male Nurse Grade-I vide order dated 12.08.2008.

On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner was retired from the service vide order dated 22.03.2023 w.e.f. 31.08.2023.

4. When the petitioner was in service, an FIR No.0065/2021 came to be registered at Police Station Mahila Thana (Nagaur), District Nagaur, on 10.07.2021 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 323, 354 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The aforesaid case was registered by the in-laws of the petitioner’s son. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner and other persons for the offences under Sections 498-A & 406 of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the trial of the case is pending before the Trial Court.

5. The Police Officers also submitted a misconduct report dated 24.08.2022 to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sikar for taking action against the petitioner. A Committee was constituted by the department vide order dated 26.02.2023 for conducting an inquiry into the allegations of misconduct. The Enquiry Committee concluded that since the allegations are in regard to the family disputes and have nothing to do with the official duties, found no case for departmental proceedings and finally, the Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide order dated 12.04.2023 closed the departmental case on the recommendations of the Enquiry Committee.

6. The Assistant Director, Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare Department vide order dated 25.08.2023 directed the Treasurer, Sikar for stopping the process of retiral benefits payment and other retiral benefits of the petitioner.

7. An order dated 01.09.2023 was also issued by the Assistant Director, Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare Department in regard to stopping the process regarding payment of pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner.

8. Mr. Harendra Neel and Ms. Sarah Sharma for Mr. Vigyan Shah appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 31.08.2023, he has not been given the retiral benefits including gratuity, pension etc. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is facing a great financial hardship because he has encountered serious diseases. Counsel also submitted that the respondents have withheld the retiral benefits of the petitioner merely on acco