Government employees are ineligible for pension if their total qualifying service is less than ten years, and periods of suspension rightfully treated as extra-ordinary leave due to a confirmed criminal conviction do not count as qualifying service.

JUDGMENT :

A. Muhamed Mustaque, CJ.

1. The simple issue involved in this case, revolves around the order of compulsory retirement of the Petitioner from the service consequent upon conviction by the Criminal Court for an offense including one having moral turpitude. The Petitioner was ordered to be compulsorily retired after attaining the age of superannuation and was continuing in suspension for more than two decades.

2. The Petitioner approached this Court for the following reliefs:

“a) A Writ of or in the nature of certiorari and/or writ of like nature or any other writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondent No. 2 to quash the order dated 30.06.2021 whereby major penalty was imposed upon the Petitioner without any proceeding;

b) A Writ of or in the nature of certiorari and/or writ of like nature or any other writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondent No. 4 to rectify the order dated 04.04.2023 passed in this case and direct the Respondent to pay the pension as well as due full salary remaining since 2001 after deduction from subsistence allowance;

c) Costs of the proceedings;

d) Any other Writ/Writs or Order/Orders or direction/directions or declaration as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

And for which the Petitioner as in duty bound shall every pray.”

3. Detailed arguments have been raised at the Bar by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, supported by the assisting Counsel Ms. Neha Gupta, Advocate. They had also cited following judgments:-

• State Bank of India and others vs. B.R. Saini, 2023:PHHC:067046-DB

• State of Haryana, vs. Inder Prakash Anand and others, AIR 1976 SC 1841

• State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Navin Kumar Sinha, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3369 : 2025 Lab IC 290

4. I also had the advantage of hearing Mr. Zangpo Sherpa, learned Additional Advocate General, who also relied upon the case of P.N. Saji vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 658.

5. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeded on the proposition that once an employer and employee relationship stand terminated consequent upon attaining the age of superannuation, no punishment could have been imposed on the Petitioner. He also points out that without formal disciplinary proceedings the punishment of penalty by compulsory retirement is illegal. It is further argued that compulsory retirement is not a penalty, by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Orissa and others vs. Ram Chandra Das,  ., (AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2436.) Lastly, he argued that before ordering compulsory retirement, no opportunity was given to the Petitioner to raise objection to the proposed action.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that, by virtue of Rule 7 of the Sikkim Government Servants’ (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter, “the S.G.S. Rules, 1985”), there is no requirement to hold a formal inquiry, in view of the fact that the Petitioner has been convicted by the Criminal Court under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He also refers to Rule 7 (i) of the S.G.S. Rules, 1985.

7. Further, he argued that compulsory retirement is one of the major penalties that can be imposed under the Rule 3 of the S.G.S. Rules, 1985.

8. He points out that the Petitioner is having only 9 years 5 months and 20 days of qualifying service, rendering him ineligible for the pension.

9. Learned Additional Advocate General