Provisional pension cannot be granted to public servants convicted of serious crimes, as entitlement is contingent on the stay of conviction during pending appeals.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. All the writ petitions have been clubbed together and disposed of by the following judgment as a common question of law is involved.

2. The writ petitions are filed by the petitioners for a direction to the opposite parties to sanction provisional pension in their favour pending decision in connection with the judicial proceedings assailing withholding of pension and gratuity in view of the orders of the conviction on the grounds inter alia that such decision with the stoppage of provisional pension since 2017 is unjust, arbitrary and not legally tenable, hence, are liable to be interfered with followed by consequential directions issued in that regard.

3. The facts of each case are not separately narrated for the reason that the common challenge is to the non-grant of provisional pension in favour of the petitioners having been convicted in the Vigilance proceedings and for the orders of conviction and sentence pending final decision in appeals filed by them. The issue involved herein for adjudication is, whether, the petitioners, who have been convicted in criminal cases would be entitled to grant of pension including the provisional pension. From the record, it is made to reveal that in Vigilance cases, the petitioners faced trial for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted as a result and being aggrieved of, all of them have filed appeals pending disposal before this Court. The contention of the petitioners is that the appeals are not yet disposed of and since there is a fair chance of success at the end but the provisional pension has been stopped after the orders of conviction against each of them, at least, such pension should be allowed, if not final which was allowed after their retirement but stood discontinued from 2017 and hence, to be restored, till the proceedings reach finality with the disposal of the appeals. It is also stated that there is immense inconvenience and hardship caused due to the provisional pension being stopped after years from retirement as some of them are suffering from various ailments and in dire need of money to meet the medical expenditures besides to survive and lead a decent life.

4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

5. Referring to the orders of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6131 of 2023, WA No.2915 of 2023 and SLP(C) No.15926 of 2024, it is brought to the notice of the Court that in an identical case, provisional pension was allowed to the petitioners therein and it has been confirmed by the Apex Court finally. The further submission is that in W.P.(C) No.16070 of 2025, a similar direction by order dated 13^th June, 2025 was issued by this Court. In Sankar Prasad Padhy Vrs. State of Orissa and another 2016 (I) OLR 375 cited at the Bar to claim sanction of provisional pension in favour of the petitioners. Mr. Mund, learned counsel for and on behalf of the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in N.K. Suparna Vrs. Union of India and others (2004) ILR (Karnataka) 4628 besides another order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.16070 of 2025 dated 13^th June, 2025 to contend that the provisional pension should be allowed till a final decision is arrived at in the appeals which are indeed continuation of the original proceedings notwithstanding the orders of conviction by the court of 1^st instance. Essentially, the argument is that since the petitioners being aggrieved by the orders of conviction and sentence have preferred appeals pending before this Court, it shall have to be held that the judicial proceedings are i