The main legal point established in the judgment is that the deprivation of pension and retiral dues must be based on valid reasons as per the relevant pension rules, and the nature of the offence must be considered before making such decisions.

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. The core issue involved in this case is whether the respondents are justified in depriving the petitioner from pension because of his conviction under Section 324/34 of IPC.

2. The petitioner, now septuagenarian, has filed this petition seeking benefit of pension and retiral dues. The petitioner has fought a long drawn battle in the corridors of the Court. This matter has a chequered history.

3. The petitioner was working as Upper Division Teacher in Government High School, Sulganganj, District Raisen. He was implicated in a criminal case based on an incident dated 17.05.1996. The petitioner was placed under suspension because of said criminal case w.e.f. 21.05.1996. The petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.1997. The suspension period was not regularised even after his retirement. The petitioner continued to get the subsistence allowance even after his retirement. The said criminal case ended in conviction of petitioner. The trial Court by judgment dated 18.10.1997 directed that petitioner will undergo imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC.

4. Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 2234/1997 against the said judgment of the trial Court. During pendency of this case, this Court vide judgment dated 20.02.2014 decided the appeal whereby the conviction is upheld. However, this Court reduced the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the extent he has already undergone the same.

5. The petitioner relied on a document dated 05.10.2001 (Annexure-P/4) to contend that no disciplinary proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner. The respondents initially started payment of provisional pension to the petitioner. However, the same was subsequently stopped. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by this action approached the State Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 372/2002. By way of interim order dated 28.10.2002, the respondents were directed to pay interim pension as per rules. On abolition of the Tribunal, the said original application was transferred to this Court and was re-registered as Writ Petition No. 26547/2003. It is urged that initially provisional pension was started but later on, without affording any opportunity of hearing, the said benefit was abruptly stopped. Writ Petition No. 26547/2003 was disposed of by this Court on 08.09.2006 by directing the respondents to finalise the pending claim of the petitioner in relation to payment of pension by taking into account the fact that the petitioner stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of IPC.

6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with this order, preferred Writ Appeal No. 899/2006 which was decided on 09.10.2007. The Division Bench of this Court opined that the competent authority must take a decision regard being had to the language employed under Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Pension rules. The said authorities should ascribe cogent reason keeping in view the language employed in Rules and by objectively analysing the Rules. It was left on the discretion of the authorities to judge whether conviction can be called grave and what would be appropriate amount. The respondents were directed to take a decision within a period of two months.

7. In turn, the District Education Officer, Raisen passed the order dated 29.12.2007 and held that the petitioner is not entitled to receive pension. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 1176/2009 which was decided on 25.11.2009. This Court held that the matter is pending since 1997, more than twelve years have passed and hence Joint Director shall decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of one month. It was directed that the said authority shall decide the claim after taking note of observations made in Writ Appeal No. 899/2006 and Writ Petition No. 1176/2009.

8. The res