Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KULDIP SINGH, J.
RAM SARAN SINGH (Deceased) through LRs – Petitioner
Vs.
PUNJAB MANDI BOARD AND OTHERS – Respondents
CWP No. 17485 of 2009 (O&M)
Decided On : 15-09-2016
Suspension - Salary Entitlement - Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I Part 1 Chapter 7 Rule 7.2(2), Financial Rules Volume-I Chapter 2 Rule 2.25(E)(6)(A) - The court allowed the application for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner and ordered the release of full salary and allowances for the suspension period, except for the period of custody, based on the exoneration of the petitioner from all charges and the consideration of the suspension period as duty period.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order declining payment of salary for the suspension period and release of pension, gratuity, and other benefits. The petitioner was suspended for alleged absence from duty, reinstated pending enquiry, and later retired. The enquiry report exonerated the petitioner, but the pensionary benefits were not released. The respondents raised objections related to the submission of pension papers and the time-barred claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to full salary and allowances for the suspension period, except for the period of custody, and ordered the release of pensionary benefits with interest as admissible under the rules.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement to salary for the suspension period, release of pensionary benefits, and the submission of necessary papers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, being exonerated from all charges, was entitled to full salary and allowances for the suspension period, except for the period of custody. The court also found that the petitioner was not at fault for non-completion of service book and non-submission of pension papers, and thus entitled to release of pensionary benefits.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, granting the petitioner full salary and allowances for the suspension period, except for the period of custody, and ordered the release of pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and other retiral benefits with interest.
Kuldip Singh J.
CM No. 6641 of 2015
1. It comes out that application for impleading the LRs of petitioner had already been filed which is not listed today. In the interest of justice, the application is taken on board today for hearing.
2. It is stated that Ram Saran Singh-petitioner has expired on 14.06.2014. Copy of the death certificate is attached. The application is allowed. The legal heirs of deceased Ram Saran Singh are ordered to be brought on record. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
CWP No. 17485 of 2009
3. Ram Saran Singh deceased has filed the present writ petition for quashing the impugned order dated 19.11.2008 (Annexure P-11), vide which the payment of salary for the suspension period from 2.5.1994 to 31.03.2004 was declined. Petitioner also sought the writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other service benefits.
4. The short facts which are required to be noticed are that Ram Saran Singh was appointed as Auction Recorder in market committee, Phagwara on 28.08.1975. He was promoted as Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector on 19.03.1983. He was transferred from one Market Committee to another. However, the respondents fixed Market Committee, Hoshiarpur as his parent Committee. On 02.05.1994, the petitioner was suspended by Market Committee, Raiya vide Resolution No. 6, allegedly on the ground of absence from duty. Three year later, a charge sheet was issued on 11.11.1997. Petitioner was reinstated in service on 07.08.2003 (Annexure P-2), pending the enquiry and joined on 01.04.2004. He retired from service on 15.03.2005. Later on, on receipt of the enquiry report, a sub committee was formed by Market Committee, Hoshiarpur, which vide the enquiry report dated 28.05.2005 (Annexure-P-7) found that petitioner is innocent and exonerated him from all the charges. It also comes out that the petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 4774 of 2008, which was disposed of on 25.03.2008 (Annexure-P-10) with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation (Annexure-P-5). In pursuant to the said order, the representation has been decided vide Annexure P-11, vide which, the salary for the suspension period has been declined on the ground that it is time barred under Financial Rules Volume-I Chapter 2 Rule 2.25 (E) (6) (A) and that under Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I Part 1 Chapter 7 Rule 7.2 (2). The employee was required to submit a certificate that he is not gainfully employed in any service or business or doing any other work which he did not submit. The pensionary benefits were also not released to him. After the passing of the said order, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner died and the same is being now pursued by his legal heirs.
5. Respondents No. 1 and 2 in the written statement stated that the Market Committee is to release the pensionary benefits and they have nothing to do with the same. Respondents No. 3 and 4 took the preliminary objection that during the suspension period, petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 40 dated 26.03.2001 registered at Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar under Section 354, 323, 506, 148 and 149 IPC, in which Section 308 IPC was added later on. He was arrested on 27.04.2001 and was released on bail on 17.05.2001 and is now on regular bail. It was submitted that despite repeated number of letters, the pension papers were not submitted by the petitioner to the authorities. The department had sent letter No.81 dated 25.04.2008, registered letter No. 401 dated 20.07.2008, public notice dated 08.09.2008 pasted at his house, registered letter no.30 dated 11.01.2010 and also publication in Daily Newspapers Ajit and Jagbani on 9.6.2010 and 11.06.2010 respectively. It was admitted that the parent department of the petitioner was fixed vide letter dated 3.12.2004 by Mandi Board. It was sta
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
