Withholding of pensionary benefits without pending departmental or criminal proceedings is void ab initio and entitles the affected party to compensation for the delay in the release of benefits.

JUDGMENT :

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.

1. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2017 after availing extension for a period of two years after attaining the age of superannuation, but all the pensionary benefits for which the petitioner is entitled, have not been released to her. The prayer of the petitioner is for directing the respondents to release all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner to her forthwith alongwith arrears and interest.

2. As per the facts mentioned in the present writ petition, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Steno-Typist with the respondent-Department of Cultural Affairs Archeology and Museums, Government of Punjab, on 16.06.1976. Thereafter, she was promoted as a Senior Assistant on 16.10.1996 and continued working as such till 17.11.2008 when she was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent Grade-I and she attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2015. Thereafter petitioner was granted extension for a period of two years and ultimately she retired from service on 31.03.2017.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that her pensionary benefits have not been released and that too without any valid justification. It has been averred by the petitioner that she is only getting 75% of the provisional pension and her gratuity amount has been withheld by the respondents, though there was no valid justification for the same.

4. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply. In the reply, the respondents have stated that though, the petitioner had retired from service on 31.03.2017 but at that time a complaint against the petitioner was made by one Shri Manjit Singh to the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, alleging certain irregularities. Copy of the said complaint has been attached as Annexure R-2 with the reply by the respondents. In the reply, the respondents have admitted that there are no departmental or criminal proceedings which were pending against the petitioner at the time of retirement or even up to now.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further states that the proposal to issue the charge-sheet to the petitioner is still under process and the same is likely to be issued in near future.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file with their valuable assistance.

7. The prayer of the petitioner is for the release of the pensionary benefits along with arrears. Keeping in view the rules governing the services, the pensionary benefits such as leave encashment and the gratuity can be withheld by the respondents in case, there are any departmental or criminal proceedings pending against an employee at the time of retirement. In the present case, it has been admitted by the respondents that there were no departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner at the time of retirement and even now the position remains the same.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents argues that once there is a complaint which is pending before the Punjab Vigilance Bureau, the same has to be treated as departmental proceedings and the respondents have a valid justification as well as jurisdiction under the rules governing the service to retain the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.

9. A complaint made by a person against an employee which is still under investigation, cannot be treated as pending departmental proceedings. The complaint is only information about the allegations of irregularities. In case, the respondents find any substance in those allegations, they can issue a charge-sheet to hold the departmental proceedings against a serving employee or even against a retired employee, if permitted under the rules governing the service.

10. In the present case, the complaint on the basis of which the benefits of the petitioner have been withheld, is dated 06.03.20