IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:-

The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad And The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya W.P.S.T. 8 of 2025 Krishnadas Chatterjee Versus The State of West Bengal and Others For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyachi Chatterjee, Mr. Sayan Banerjee, Mr. Badrul Karim, Mr. Aritra Ghosh.

For the Respondents : Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, ld. AGP, Ms. Sangeeta Roy.

Judgment on : June 10, 2025 Madhuresh Prasad, J.:

1. The petitioner was the applicant and his claim for release of pensionary benefits has been rejected by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (SAT for short). The original application (OA) No. 634 of 2021 filed by the petitioner has been disposed of by order dated 07.03.2024, without passing any order in favour of the petitioner. The same is the subject matter of the present writ proceedings.

2. The petitioner was working as an Upper Division Assistant (U.D.A.)

under the Directorate of Health Services. He was made an accused in a criminal case and taken in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, leading to the consequence of his deemed automatic suspension. During the period of suspension, he was paid subsistence allowance. After his release from judicial custody, the State respondents lifted the suspension and allowed the petitioner to continue on his post. The criminal case being Sankrail P.S. Case No. 159 of 2011, in which the petitioner was arrested, is still pending consideration before the trial court.

3. The above facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is getting an interim allowance, i.e. 2/3 of the pension due to him. Learned AGP has fairly submitted there that as per the West Bengal Services (Death Cum Retirement Benefit) Rules 1971(DCRB 1971 for brevity), subsequent upon his attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2020, the petitioner is also entitled to grant of full benefits under the heads - leave encashment, group insurance and provident fund.

4. Therefor the contentious issue for consideration in the present case is whether the petitioner can claim release of full pension during pendency of the criminal case and whether he would be entitled to grant of the benefits of gratuity during pendency of the criminal case.

5. Referring to copy of the F.I.R. and Charge Sheet of Sankrail P.S. case No. 159/2011 wherein the petitioner is an accused, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the allegations therein are neither related to discharge of his official duties, nor does it involve moral turpitude. He submits that substance of the allegation is that he availed a loan, the proceeds of which have been paid directly to a builder. The builder in conspiracy with the present petitioner has allegedly misappropriated the amounts. The allegation is thus primarily against the builder. The allegations are predominantly civil in nature, regarding non-repayment of loan. Therefore, pendency of such criminal proceedings would not invite any consequence of withholding any of the petitioners’ post retiral dues under DCRB 1971.

6. The allegations do not involve any element of moral turpitude the authorities therefore do not have the option of withholding the grant of pension to the petitioner. Referring to Rule 14 of the DCRB 1971, he submits that only if the allegation in the criminal proceedings involve an element of moral turpitude, the Rule permits withholding of pension; and grant of interim allowance not exceeding 2/3 of the pension during the pendency of criminal proceedings. Element of moral turpitude being absent in the criminal case against the petitioner, there is no justification for withholding the full pension of the petitioner. Therefore, the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal ought to have issued directions for release of full pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

7. Insofar as the claim with respect to gratuity is concerned, he submits that Rule 14 talks only about withholding of pension in the case