Back
2006 Supreme(All) 3342
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANJAY MISRA, R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Dukhan Prasad Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India (UOI) and Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55257 of 2004
Decided On : 22-05-2006
For the Appellant : Amit Saxena, P.N. Saxena and D.K. Singh.
For the Respondent: K.C. Sinha, Asst. S.G. and S.S.C.
Pension is a legal entitlement and can only be curtailed by an express provision of law. Provisional pension should not have been granted when judicial proceedings were instituted before the retirement of the government servant and continued after retirement.
Headnote:
Pension Rules - Withholding of Pension - Rule 9 of the Pension Rules - The court analyzed Rule 9 of the Pension Rules and held that the provisional pension should not have been granted when judicial proceedings were instituted before the retirement of the government servant and continued after retirement. The court emphasized that pension is a legal entitlement and can only be curtailed by an express provision of law. The court also awarded interest at the rate of 10% per annum for wrongfully withholding the pension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired government servant, was denied full pension and retiral benefits due to pending judicial proceedings related to his service period. The petitioner had been exonerated in the departmental proceedings but was facing trial in a criminal case. The court analyzed the provisions of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules and the petitioner's entitlement to pension and retiral benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to full pension and retiral benefits as he had been exonerated in the departmental proceedings. The court held that the provisional pension should not have been granted when judicial proceedings were instituted before the retirement of the government servant and continued after retirement. The court also awarded interest at the rate of 10% per annum for wrongfully withholding the pension.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of the petitioner to full pension and retiral benefits despite pending judicial proceedings related to his service period, and the interpretation of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that pension is a legal entitlement and can only be curtailed by an express provision of law. The court emphasized that the provisional pension should not have been granted when judicial proceedings were instituted before the retirement of the government servant and continued after retirement. The court also awarded interest at the rate of 10% per annum for wrongfully withholding the pension.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders denying the petitioner full pension and retiral benefits, and directed the release of full pension including arrears along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum within three months.
R.K. Agrawal, J.
By means of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Dhukhan Prasad Singh, seeks the following reliefs:
(a) issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.2004 passed by the Respondent No. 5(Annexure No. 10) and also the order dated 1.5.2003 (Annexure No. 3) passed by the Respondent No. 2.
(b) issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to release the full pension of the petitioner along with the arrears and also release all the retiral benefits including gratuity.
(c) issue any other or further Writ, Order or Direction, which the Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner.
(d) award the cost of the petition.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:
According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 6th July, 1959 in the Railway Mail Service on the post of Mail Man in Gaya Division. He was reitred on 31st July, 2000 from the post of HSG-II SA from the office of HRO, RMS 'C' Division, Gaya. After his retirement the petitioner was not granted full pension nor he was given his post retiral benefits including gratuity and other entitlements. The Senior Superintendent, RMS 'C' Division, Gaya, respondent No.3, however, vide order dated 5.9.2000 granted provisional pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.8.2000. It is alleged by the petitioner that at the time of his retirement no departmental proceedings, whatsoever, were pending nor any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him after his retirement. The petitioner made several representations for the release of the full amount of retiral benefits, however, no action was taken on them whereafter the petitioner filed Original Application No. 1417 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal", which vide order dated 5th December, 2002 directed the authorities concerned to take a final decision on the representations made by the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and to pay his retiral benefits in case there was no impediment under law. Pursuant to the directions given by the Tribunal, the Director of Accounts(Postal), Patna-1, respondent No. 2, vide order dated 1st May, 2003 had rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that he was facing trial in Case No. 932 of 1992, which is related to his services during his employment with the respondent authorities. The aforesaid case relates to the period when the petitioner was in service and was working at Hazari Bagh Road RMS, when certain insured articles were lost from the custody of the RMS Hazari Bagh for which a First Information Report was lodged at police station Bagapur against six persons including the petitioner. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. he was issued a memorandum of charge for imposition of minor penalties under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 along with a statement of imputation to which he submitted his reply in which he had stated that he was not even on duty when the articles were allegedly lost. After a full fledged enquiry, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not be held guilty of any misconduct and vide orders dated 13.8.1998 he was exonerated of all the charges levelled against him. However, a charge sheet was submitted by the police authorities on 30.11.1994. The trial is still going on, After the rejection of the petitioner's representation vide order dated 1st May, 2003, the petitioner challenged the same by filing Original Application No. 757 of 2003 before the Tribunal, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 5th September, 2003. The Tribunal had quashed the orders dated 1st May, 2003 and directed the respondents to release the full pension of the petitioner and also to make payment r
