PRADEEP KANT, KAMAL KISHORE, JJ.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sandeep Dixit and Sri Harsh Vardhan the learned standing counsel.

( 2 ) SINCE counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged, we had proceeded to dispose of the writ petition finally.

( 3 ) THE petitioner joined the services as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the year 1972. While he was posted as Veterinary Officer at Veterinary Hospital, Jaitpur Kalan, district Agra in the year 1990, he was caught in a trap case regarding which First Information Report was lodged, in which the investigation is still going on and a charge-sheet is said to have been filed in the Court on 6. 11. 2002. This information has been given by the learned standing counsel on the basis of instructions received and on the basis of record available to him. The petitioner was allowed to continue in service throughout.

( 4 ) THE petitioner was suspended in the year 1992 against which order he filed Writ Petition No. 7094 (S/b) of 1992 in which the High Court passed an order of stay, staying the operation of the suspension order and provided that in case the charge-sheet in the criminal case is served on the petitioner, it shall be open to authorities to approach this Court for vacation of the interim order. The disciplinary proceedings, if any, were allowed to be continued and were directed to be concluded as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner was ordered to be paid full salary regularly every month. Obviously, the State could not move any application for vacation of stay order on the ground mentioned in the interim order as the charge-sheet was not served upon the petitioner and it has been submitted in the Court only on 6. 11. 2002, as a consequence, the petitioner was continuously allowed to perform his duties. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, he reached the age of superannuation and retired on 28. 2. 2001. So far the suspension is concerned that has automatically come to an end on reaching the age of superannuation of the petitioner.

( 5 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that despite the petitioner having been allowed to work and having been paid salary, is not being paid his post-retiral dues and pensionary benefits, therefore, for the payment of the same, the present petition has been filed.

( 6 ) WITHHOLDING of the post-retiral dues, may be, gratuity, pension or other dues after the retirement of a Government servant can be done only in accordance with any Rule. In absence of any such Rule or any such law, the post-retiral dues cannot be withheld neither the pension can be stopped nor curtailed nor reduced. The defence taken in the writ petition and as urged by the learned counsel for the respondents clearly establishes that there is no Rule nor any provision of law under which in the circumstances of the present case, namely ; the pendency of criminal case with respect to a trap case, the post retiral dues or pension can be withheld, stopped or delayed.

( 7 ) SHRT Harsh Vardhan, learned standing counsel laid emphasis upon a Government order dated 28th July, 1989, in particular para 3 (3) of the said Government order in support of the action taken by the opposite parties for withholding the retiral dues of the petitioner. A bare perusal of the aforesaid paragraph of the Government order reveals that it relates to such a Government servant against whom some departmental/ judicial or administrative enquiry is pending on the date of retirement. It nowhere provides that if criminal proceedings are pending, even then the said Government order would apply. Suffice it would to mention that such a provision could not have been made for the simple reason that unless departmental proceedings have been initiated or some judicial or administrative proceedings have been initiated for the purpose of determining the guilt of the Government servant during the course of service, mere pendency of the criminal proceedings cannot be a ground for taki

Click Here to Read the rest of this document