Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Ori) 508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.
Bijaya Krishna Panigrahi - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Odisha And Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.30151 of 2020, W.P.(C) No.30157 of 2020
Decided On : 08-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. J. K. Rath,, Sr. Adv. Along With Associate
For the Respondent: Mr.Sonak Mishra, Asc

Pension is a fundamental right and property under Article 300A, and cannot be withheld without statutory authority, regardless of pending vigilance proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 - Pension and pensionary benefits - Withholding of retirement benefits due to pendency of vigilance proceedings challenged - Court emphasizes pension as a fundamental right secured under various judicial precedents including D.S. Nakara v. Union of India - Mere pendency of cases cannot justify withholding retirement dues - Procedural compliance required for regular pension sanction - No statutory provision invoked by respondents for withholding benefits. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 18)

(B) Right to pension - Characterized as property under Article 300A - Justified only by statutory provisions and cannot be withheld based on administrative orders - Delay in release considered arbitrary and lacking legal foundation. (Paras 14, 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the withholding of his retirement benefits and regular pension citing pending vigilance cases against him post-retirement on 31.12.2017. He initiated a writ petition seeking relief after two years of delay in pensionary benefits due to inaction from authorities. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that pension cannot be withheld due to mere pendency of vigilance proceedings and emphasized the fundamental rights associated with pension. Actions by the state lack statutory support and must comply with legal obligations for sanctioning pension benefits. (Paras 19, 20)

Issues: Whether the pendency of vigilance proceedings can justify withholding pensionary benefits and the nature of pension as an earned right rather than a discretionary bonus. (Paras 7, 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that withholding pension lacks legal basis, asserting that pension is a property right that cannot be denied without statutory authority and emphasizing the importance of timely disbursal of pension benefits. (Paras 14, 18)

Result: Writ petitions allowed; opposite parties directed to process and release retirement benefits within three months.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the petitioner’s service and pension claim. (Para 3)
2. petitioner claims right to retirement benefits. (Para 4)
3. opposition citing pendency of vigilance cases. (Para 5)
4. discussion on withholding pension based on criminal cases. (Para 6 , 7)
5. pension as a fundamental right and integral to social security. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
6. legality of withholding pension without statutory provisions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
7. direction for disbursement of pensionary benefits. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in both the above- mentioned Writ Petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court felt it apposite to deal the W.P.(C) No.30151 of 2020as the leading case for proper adjudication of all these cases.

2. The Petitioner, by way of W.P.(C) No.30151 of 2020, contest the withholding of his retirement benefits and regular pension on the grounds of pending vigilance proceedings against them.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

3. The brief fact of the case in brevity remains:-

(i) The petitioner was selected and appointed as an Inspector of Commercial Taxes under the Finance Department and joined the post on 23.01.1984. While he was serving the Commercial Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-IV Circle, Bhubaneswar serving in this capacity, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule-15 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 by the opposite party no.1 through Finance Department Office Memorandum No. 27810/F dated 21.06.2010.

(ii) The petitioner was asked to submit a written statement of defense, which he did, denying the charges leveled against him. However, the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the petitioner’s reply, leading to a communication issued to the petitioner via Office Order No. 42647/F dated 04.10.2010, stating that an inquiry would be conducted. Subsequently, the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, G.A. Department, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, and the State Representative from the General Administration Department was appointed as the Marshalling Officer. Additionally, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Puri Range, Bhubaneswar, was appointed as the Additional Marshalling Officer for presenting the case and adducing evidence in support of the charges.

(iii) The Inquiry Officer, after completing the inquiry, approved the charges against the petitioner in the Inquiry Report, and a copy of the report was provided to the petitioner. The petitioner was then asked to submit a representation as per the provisions of Rule-15(10)(i)(a) of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962. In response, the petitioner submitted his representation, as required by the State Government under the CCA Rules. Following the completion of the proceedings, the State Government imposed the punishment of censure and withheld two annual increments with cumulative effect, as outlined in Office Order No. 29002 dated 13.10.2014.

(iv) An FIR No. 19 dated 21.04.2010 was lodged by the Vigilance Department through DSP, Vigilance Directorate, Cuttack, against five individuals, including the petitioner, who was the then Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-IV Circle. The other accused were ShriAjaya Kumar Das, OFS-I, the then Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes of Puri Range, Bhubaneswar, Smt. HarapriyaPanigrahi, the then Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-IV Circle, ShriTrilochanSethi, also the then Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-IV Circle, and Shri Chita Behera, Proprietor of M/s. C.B. Steels, Ward No. VIII, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. Another FIR, bearing No. 20, was also lodged on the same day, 21.04.2010, against five individuals, including the petitioner, in relation to another case. The accused in this FIR included Shri Narendr