The discretion of the Appointing Authority in withholding or withdrawing pension, the limitation on recovery from pension, and the specific disqualification for family pension in case of involvement in the murder of the Government employee are key legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

G S Sandhawalia, J. - In the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 12.09.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent no.2 whereby her claim for grant of arrears of monthly financial assistance and family pension has been rejected. Resultantly, a writ in the nature of mandamus is sought for releasing the benefits of family pension including the arrears of monthly financial assistance, family pension and other benefits along with the arrears of revised pay on account of revision of pay scale from November, 2011 and other admissible benefits due to Tarsem Singh, husband of the petitioner, who had died during service on 17.11.2008. Interest @ 18% per annum is also claimed on account of delay in disbursal of the aforesaid amount(s).

2. The reasoning given to deny the said benefits is that the conduct, as such, of the petitioner was not good as she has been convicted by the Court and, therefore, pecuniary benefits could not be extended to her on both accounts monthly financial assistance and the liability of family pension. For the aforesaid reasoning, respondent no.2 relied upon the provisions of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 2006") and the pension provisions under the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II including the Family Pension Rules, 1964. The said order has been, thus, defended by filing the written statement that the pension is not a charity or bounty and it is a conditional payment depending upon the sweet will of the employer. The person, convicted for the offence of murder, cannot be allowed the said benefit and since the petitioner's conviction has not been stayed and only her sentence has been suspended while releasing her on bail, she was held not entitled to any pecuniary benefits under the Haryana Government. Rule 2.2(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II (as applicable to the State of Haryana) has been relied upon by the respondents.

3. The brief background of the present case is that the petitioner's husband was working as a teacher in the respondent-Education Department on regular basis since 1986. He died on 17.11.2008, leaving behind the petitioner as his widow along with children. In view of the Rules of 2006, the financial assistance became payable on the death of any Government employee, to the family of such deceased employee, and it is to be continued to be payable till the date specified in the Rules of 2006 or the date the employee would have retired from the Government service on attaining the age of superannuation, which in the present case is 31.10.2017. The eligibility of the petitioner to receive the family pension would come thereafter. The petitioner continued to draw the monthly financial assistance for some time, but then she was involved in FIR No.126 dated 31.07.2009. She was convicted on 19.11.2011 along with Gurjeet Singh and sentenced to life imprisonment on 23.11.2011 (Annexure P-5). She firstly filed CWP No.5086 of 2015 alleging that no order had been passed for releasing the family pension and other admissible benefits. The respondents took the defence that since the order of conviction and sentence had been passed against the petitioner, therefore, on account of her lack of good conduct, the amount of monthly financial assistance had been stopped. Resultantly, an interim order was passed on 15.05.2017 that the monthly financial assistance would be continued to be paid and a speaking order be passed whether it was payable upto 17.11.2016 and whether the family pension is liable to be stopped thereafter. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of having been rendered infructuous on 14.09.2017 (Annexure P-9) on account of the impugned order having been passed on 12.09.2017, as noticed earlier.

4. The relevant provisions of the various Rules, relied upon by the respondents for