Back
1996 Supreme(P&H) 298
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L.Anand and R.P.Sethi JJ.
Jagir Singh Randhawa
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 14696 of 1995,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 14, 1996
Retirement benefits are property and cannot be withheld without due course of law. The State cannot curtail or abolish the right to receive pension by executive order.
Headnote:
RETIREMENT BENEFITS - WITHHOLDING - PENDING INQUIRY - LEGALITY - RETIREMENT BENEFITS ARE PROPERTY AND CANNOT BE WITHHELD WITHOUT DUE COURSE OF LAW - STATE CANNOT CURTAIL OR ABOLISH THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE PENSION BY EXECUTIVE ORDER - INTEREST ON RETIREMENT BENEFITS - AWARDED AT 12% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE THE BENEFITS BECAME DUE TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Jagir Singh Randhawa, a retired General Manager of Punjab Roadways, filed a writ petition challenging the withholding of his retirement benefits by the State of Punjab on the ground of a pending inquiry against him. The petitioner argued that his retirement benefits were being withheld illegally and that he was entitled to receive them in full, along with interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the State could not withhold the petitioner's retirement benefits merely on the ground of a pending inquiry. The court found that retirement benefits are property and cannot be withheld without due course of law. The court also held that the State could not curtail or abolish the right to receive pension by executive order.
Issues: 1. Whether retirement benefits can be withheld pending an inquiry? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on his retirement benefits?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the following legal principles: - Bhagwant Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1962 Punjab 503: The State is not competent by any executive order to curtail or abolish the right of a public servant to receive the pension. - Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 S.C. 1409: The right to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and cannot be withheld by a mere executive order. - State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ranojirao Shinde, AIR 1968 S.C. 1053: The recovery of money is a property within the meaning of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. - K.C. Gupta vs. State of Haryana and others, LPA No.700 of 1991: Retirement benefits are property and cannot be denied to a person save by the authority of law. - Ishar Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1993(4) S.L.R. 655: A departmental inquiry does not deprive a civil servant of the right to get retirement benefits. 2. The court awarded interest on the retirement benefits at the rate of 12% per annum from the date the benefits became due till the date of payment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to release the full retirement benefits to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date the retirement benefits became due to him till the date those are actually paid to the petitioner.
R.L.Anand, J.
1. The short point which requires determination in this writ petition is whether retiral benefits of a civil servant can be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of inquiry or not.
2. Jagir Singh Randhawa, Retired General Manager of Punjab Roadways, Muktsar, has filed the present civil writ petition under Article 226 read with ?Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the State of Punjab (respondent No.l) and the Accountant General (A&E), Punjab (respondent No.2), praying that, directions in the nature of writ of mandamus be issued against the respondents to release retiral benefits of the petitioner in total on his completion, of age of superannuation, i.e. 30.9.1988, along with interest. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing letter dated 16.9,1993 (Annexure P3) along with Inquiry Report (Annexure P4).
3. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on 30.9.1988 from the post of General Manager, Punjab Roadways, but just 10 days of his retirement, i.e. on 20.9.1988, he was served with a charge-sheet on the allegations that the petitioner was grossly negligent in the discharge of his duty, and being overall incharge of the depot, four buses which were disposed of on different dates, higher model buses were delivered to the Kabaries. Further it was alleged against the petitioner that he gave advance to one Shri Ishwar Dayal, clerk of his office. These allegations were denied by the petitioner by filing separate reply. For our purposes this part of the case of the parties is not necessary as we are more concerned about the legal proposition as earlier set up in the first para of this judgment, as to whether for contemplated departmental action the retiral benefits of a civil servant can be withheld under the law or not.
4. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents and it has been contested only by respondent No.l. Respondent No.l, however, admits that the petitioner retired from service as General Manager. On merits the stand of the respondent is that leave encashment has already been given to the petitioner. Provisional pension at the rate of 80% has also been released. So far as the gratuity is concerned, necessary orders have been issued by the Director, State Transport, Punjab on 30.6.1995 (Annexure R1). It has been stated in the writ reply that inquiry in the present case has been marked to the Divisional Manager, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh. The Inquiry Officer furnished his findings on 12.11.1991 and that the inquiry could not be completed upto 7.1.1991. Justifying the action and relying upon the report of the Inquiry Officer, the respondent submits that the Government has taken a tentative decision to impose 10% cur in the pension of the petitioner and thereafter his gratuity would be released. In other words, it can be said that the State while justifying the inquiry, impliedly admits that the full retiral benefits have . not been released to the petitioner.
5. Vide order dated 11.10,1995 this Court granted permission to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to withdraw the prayer regarding the quashing of the show cause notice and the inquiry report and notice of motion was issued to the respondents only with regard to the grant of retiral benefits.
6. We have heard Shri J.S. Maanipur, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Shri S.S. Shergill, D.A.G. Punjab, on behalf of respondent No. 1, and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that while pending a departmental action, the retirement benefits of a civil servant cannot be withheld/denied. He submitted that pension has been recognised as a property of an ex-civil servant under the provisions of the Constitution and cannot be deprived without adopting due course of law. It was further submitted that the State could not by any executive order curtail th
