Pensionary benefits cannot be withheld if there are no pending charge sheets at the time of retirement, and the employee is entitled to interest on delayed release of benefits.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) - Present petition has been filed with a prayer that pensionary benefits of the petitioner, which have been withheld by the respondents, may kindly be got released along with interest.

2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner was appointed as Accountant in the Milkfed and he remained working there from 20.07.1981 to 25.10.2000. While working with the Milkfed, the petitioner had applied for the post of Legal Assistant in the office of Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab. While working on the post of Legal Assistant, the petitioner got promotion as Senior Auditor and while working on the said post, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted extension in service and petitioner ultimately reitred on 30.09.2017.

3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that after the retirement, the petitioner was served with two charge sheets, due to which, certain pensionary benefits of the petitioner were withheld though, withholding of the pensionary benefits on the basis of the charge sheet which was served after the retirement, was not permissible. The prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents may kindly be directed to release all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner forthwith along with the interest.

4. After notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply wherein, they have submitted that after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, he was granted extension for a period of six months and after availing the same, the petitioner retired from service on 30.09.2017 but as the petitioner was served two charge sheets, certain benefits of the petitioner were withheld. As per the reply, the charge sheets issued to the petitioner were enquired into and were ultimately dropped as the allegations could not be proved and thereafter, the case of the petitioner was considered for the release of the pensionary benefits and as of now, all the pensionary benefits for which the petitioner is entitled for, have already been released.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes the factum that all the pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner have already been released but the prayer of the petitioner is for the grant of interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits as, the pensionary benefits were withheld by the respondents for a considerable long period of time and the same were only released to the petitioner.

6. The question of law as to whether, under which circumstances, the pensionary benefits of the employee can be withheld, is settled. As per the settled principle of law in case any departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings pending at the time of the retirement, only in that circumstances there vest a jurisdiction with the respondents to withhold the leave encashment as well as gratuity. The provisional pension and the provident fund cannot be withheld by the respondents under any circumstances.

7. In the present case, though the petitioner retired on attaining the age of supernnuation on 30.09.2017, the GPF was paid on 22.03.2018 i.e. approximately five months after the retirement, the gratuity admissible to the petitioner has been paid on 10.06.2021 and the leave encashment on 25.09.2021.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the charge sheets issued to the petitioner were after his retirement and were later on dropped by the respondents which clearly shows that the allegations which were being made against the petitioner in the charge sheets, which were the basis of withholding the pensionary benefits, could not proved by the respondents.

9. Further, in the present case when there was no charge sheet pending against the petitioner at the time of retirement, the pensionary benefits could not be withheld even otherwise. The settled principle of law in this regard has been enumerated by the judgment of this Bench in CWP No.26