Retiral benefits cannot be withheld based solely on the registration of FIRs without a challan being presented at the time of retirement.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 07.09.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 vide which only provisional pension has been sanctioned and the retiral benefits of the petitioner i.e. death-cum-retirement gratuity, leave encashment and regular pension, have been withheld.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had joined the respondent department on 16.02.1980 as a Junior Engineer and after attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years, had retired as a Sub-Divisional Officer on 28.02.2017. It is further submitted that after his retirement, the retiral benefits i.e. death-cum-retirement gratuity, leave encashment and regular pension were not released to the petitioner in spite of the fact that no departmental or judicial proceedings were pending against him on the day he retired from his service nor was the petitioner under suspension. It is stated that although the petitioner was involved in four FIRs, but in none of the said four FIRs, the challan had been presented on the date of retirement and thus, it could not be stated that criminal proceedings had been instituted at the time when the petitioner retired. It is further stated that FIR No.117 dated 11.10.2016 was registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC and the cancellation report had been submitted in the same and that the other three FIRs i.e. FIR No.10 dated 17.08.2017, FIR No.3 dated 01.03.2018 and FIR No.16 dated 11.12.2017, were all registered after the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e. 28.02.2017 and thus, the question of judicial proceedings being pending on the date of retirement does not arise. It is also stated that even no charge-sheet in the departmental proceedings had been issued on the date when the petitioner retired, inasmuch as, in one departmental proceeding, which is pending against the petitioner as on date, the charge-sheet has been issued on 04.08.2023. It is submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court in "Gobind Ram Verma v. State of Punjab and others", passed in CWP-19954-2018 and another connected matters, decided on 12.03.2024, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the retiral benefits of the petitioner i.e. death-cum-retirement gratuity, leave encashment and regular pension deserve to be released to the petitioner along with interest. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in "Atam Bodh Sharma v. State of Haryana and others", reported as 2006(4) S.C.T. 760.

3. Learned State counsel on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner is involved in four criminal cases and is also facing departmental proceedings. It is further submitted that in three FIRs out of four, the challan has been presented. It is argued that the petitioner was absent from duty for a certain period also and thus, his retirement pension papers could not be prepared at the appropriate time. Learned State counsel, however, could not dispute the fact that on the date of the retirement of the petitioner, neither any challan in any of the said FIRs had been presented nor any charge-sheet had been issued to the petitioner in the departmental proceedings. It is submitted by the State counsel that at any rate, the petitioner be not granted interest on the retiral benefits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal has very fairly submitted that the petitioner restricts his prayer for interest from the year 2020.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the record.

6. A similar issue arose in the case of Gobind Ram Verma (supra) and this Court, after considering the law laid down in various judgments, had held as under: -

"7. The question that arises for consideration and determination before this Court in the present cases is as to whether the action of the r