SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(All) 2796

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
Ram Nagina Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Others - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. - 66995 of 2008
Decided On : 30-04-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:- H.P. Mishra
For the Respondent:- C.S.C.

Pendency of a criminal case is not a valid ground for withholding pension, and pension is a right governed by rules.

Headnote:

PENSION - Recovery of Excess Payment - Deoki Nandan Shan Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1971 SC 1409; D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305; Secretary, O.N.G.C. Limited Vs. V.U.Warrier, 2005 (5) SCC 245 - The court held that the pendency of a criminal case is not a ground for withholding pension and directed the respondents to pay full pension to the petitioner. The recovery of the excess amount was allowed, and the department was given the option to proceed afresh after the decision in the criminal case.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the order directing the recovery of an allegedly excess payment and sought the release of arrears of pension, gratuity, and other allowances. The petitioner was receiving provisional pension due to a pending criminal case.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to pay full pension to the petitioner. However, it upheld the recovery of the excess amount and allowed the department to proceed afresh after the decision in the criminal case.

Issues: Challenge to recovery of excess payment, release of arrears of pension and allowances, and entitlement to full pension during the pendency of a criminal case.

Ratio Decidendi: Pendency of a criminal case is not a ground for withholding pension. Pension is a right governed by rules and not subject to the discretion of the government. Recovery of excess payment can be allowed, and the department can proceed afresh after the decision in the criminal case.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to pay full pension to the petitioner. The recovery of the excess amount was upheld, and the department was given the option to proceed afresh after the decision in the criminal case.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Heard Sri H.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State authority.

2. The present petition has been filed for challenging the order impugned dated 18.10.1988 whereby the recovery of Rs. 6841/- allegedly paid in excess to the petitioner, was directed by the respondent no. 2, Accountant General, (Lekha and Hakdari)-I, U.P., Allahabad. A further prayer to release entire difference of arrears of pension, gratuity etc. including various allowances has also been made by the petitioner.

3. During the course of argument and on perusal of record, it transpires that there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner being Criminal Case No. 398 of 1995 wherein the petitioner was also detained in jail from 31.10.1995 to 31.11.1995 and on this ground provisional pension is being paid to the petitioner.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents no. 3 to 5 wherein the grant of such provisional pension during the pendency of the criminal appeal was sought to be supported. It was also stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that 90% gratuity, GPF has already been paid to the petitioner and for remaining 10% GPF amount, a letter has already been written to the respondent no. 2. Insofar as the amount of Rs. 6841/- allegedly paid in excess to the petitioner, it was submitted that from the order under challenge, passed by respondent no. 2, the amount is clearly liable to be recovered from the petitioner. It was further stated that the altogether allowances like washing, food, bonus etc. have already been paid to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. decided on 5.10.2013. In the aforesaid judgement also the interim pension was being paid on the ground that the criminal case is pending against the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court relied upon various decisions of the Apex Court held that pendency of criminal case is no ground for withholding the pension of the employee and a direction to pay full pension was made by the Court. It would be appropriate to abstract paragraph 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15, which is quoted below:

7. "We are of the view that on the facts and circumstances, full pension can not be denied.

In the case of Deoki Nandan Shan Vs. State of U.P., reported in in AIR 1971 SC, 1409, the Apex Court ruled that the pension is a right and payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the Rules and the Government servant coming within those Rules is entitled to claim pension and grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount, having regard to service and other allied matters, that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effrect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was further affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Iqbal Singh, reported in AIR 1976, SC, 667.

8. In the case of D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC, 305, the Apex Court has observed as under :

"From the discussion three things emerge : (1) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution; (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch....."

9. The ratio laid









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top