SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(P&H) 576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.
Kulwant Kaur – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Others – Respondents
C.W.P. No. 14355 of 2016
Decided On : 03-03-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Arora.
Ms. Devki Anand Sullar.

Withholding of pensionary benefits based on a charge-sheet issued after retirement is impermissible, and there is an obligation to release pensionary benefits within a reasonable time after retirement.

Headnote:

PENSIONARY BENEFITS - Withholding of Pensionary Benefits - CWP No. 8655 of 2016 - CWP No. 3493 of 1986, CWP No. 13449 of 2014, A.S. Randhawa vs. State of Punjab and Others, 1997 (3) SCT 468 - The court discussed the withholding of pensionary benefits based on a charge-sheet issued after retirement, citing relevant case laws and legal principles. The court held that the respondents could not withhold the pensionary benefits of the petitioner due to the pendency of the charge-sheet, which was issued to her subsequent to her retirement. The court also emphasized the obligation to release pensionary benefits within a reasonable time after retirement and awarded interest to the petitioner for the delay in release of the benefits.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a retired employee, claimed entitlement to interest on delayed release of pensionary benefits due to the withholding of benefits based on a charge-sheet issued after her retirement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents could not withhold the pensionary benefits of the petitioner due to the pendency of the charge-sheet, which was issued to her subsequent to her retirement. The court also emphasized the obligation to release pensionary benefits within a reasonable time after retirement and awarded interest to the petitioner for the delay in release of the benefits.

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents could withhold the pensionary benefits of the petitioner based on a charge-sheet issued after her retirement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on relevant case laws to establish that withholding of pensionary benefits based on a charge-sheet issued after retirement is impermissible. The court also emphasized the obligation to release pensionary benefits within a reasonable time after retirement and awarded interest to the petitioner for the delay in release of the benefits.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the court directed the respondents to calculate and release interest to the petitioner within a specified timeframe.

JUDGMENT :

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.

1. In the present writ petition, the claim of the petitioner is that she is entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits.

2. As per facts mentioned in the writ petition, the petitioner joined as S.S. Mistress on 01.01.1990. Thereafter, she was promoted as Lecturer on 06.06.2008. While working as Lecturer, the petitioner was assigned additional charge of Drawing and Disbursing Officer from 27.01.2009 to 15.09.2010 and then again on 13.08.2010 to 16.05.2011. On attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2013, the petitioner was granted extension of one year and retired from service on 28.02.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no charge-sheet pending against her on the date of retirement and therefore, she was entitled for the release of the pensionary benefits within a reasonable time of retirement, but the same were not released and a charge-sheet was served upon her on 09.04.2014 (Annexure P-1). On the basis of the said charge-sheet, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner were withheld and the same were released from June, 2014 onwards till February, 2016. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for the grant of interest on the delayed release of pensionary benefits.

3. Upon notice of motion, respondents have filed the reply. In the reply, the respondents have stated that before the retirement of the petitioner, a complaint was made against the petitioner, on which a fact finding enquiry was conducted. Though, the report of the fact finding enquiry had already come on 31.10.2013 but before any charge-sheet could be served upon the petitioner, petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2014. As per the reply, the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 09.04.2014 and as the charge-sheet was pending against the petitioner, certain retiral benefits of the petitioner were withheld and she was being paid the provisional pension @ 90%. The respondents are defending their action on the ground that during the pendency of the proceedings, the Department is well within its jurisdiction to withhold the pensionary benefits of an employee.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.

5. The only question, which arises for consideration before this Court is whether, when there was no charge-sheet pending against the petitioner when she retired from service on 28.02.2014, can the respondents withhold her pensionary benefits on the basis of a charge-sheet which is issued subsequent to her retirement?

6. This question of law has already been settled by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3493 of 1986 titled as L.R. Dhawan vs. State of Haryana and Others, 1996 (3) SCT 11 wherein it has been held that any charge sheet which has been issued after retirement, cannot be made ground for withholding the pensionary benefits of an employee. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:-

“Gratuity due to an employee is payable to him on the date of retirement. Payment of the gratuity can be deferred in a case where the employee is under cloud at the time of his retirement, namely, in a case where he is facing departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings. If no inquiry or judicial proceedings is pending on the date of retirement of the employee, the Government/employer does not have any authority to withhold the payment of gratuity. Similarly, full pension payable to an employee can be withheld during the pending of the departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings. The Government is also possessed with the power to withhold the pension or a part thereof or recover any pecuniary loss caused to the Government from the pension payable to an employee in case such Government servant is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of his duties during the course of service. Deduction from the pension can be made even on the basis of an inquiry which may be i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top