IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

213 Date of decision: 05.04.2025 Sham Babu ...Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents-UOI.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. Seeking quashing of the order dated 25.04.2016 as well as the subsequent dismissal of appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 15.06.2017 to the extent of withholding 100% pension of the petitioner w.e.f. 09.02.2016, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Sanitary Supervisor on 29.01.1980 in the Cantonment Board, Ambala on adhoc basis and he was eventually regularized in the year 1984 as a Tax Collector, Grade-II. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Clerk in the year 1995 wherefrom he superannuated on 31.03.2015 after attaining the age of 60 years. While working as a Clerk in the Cantonment Board, Ambala, an FIR under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B, IPC was registered at Police Station Ambala against the petitioner. He was placed under suspension vide DO part order No.135 dated 17.09.2011 after being arrested by the CBI team. Since the petitioner was due to retire during the pendency of the proceedings, he was reinstated and was directed to complete his pension papers well in time. It is submitted that vide judgment dated 09.02.2016, the Special Judge (CBI), Panchkula convicted the petitioner alongwith his co-accused u/s 120, IPC read with Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years and it was also ordered that the sentence shall run concurrently. CRA-S-1021-SB of 2016 against the conviction was filed by the petitioner wherein the sentence awarded to the petitioner was suspended during the pendency of the said appeal. The said appeal admitted is currently pending.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner whereby he was required to show cause within 10 days of the receipt of this notice as to why the pension drawn by him be not stopped w.e.f. 09.02.2016 i.e. the date of conviction. He furnished his reply to the said Show Cause Notice apprising that an appeal against the judgment of conviction has already been filed and that the Hon’ble High Court had already ordered suspension of sentence. Notwithstanding, the said reply, the respondents directed withholding of 100% pension payable to the petitioner. He sent a representation dated 24.04.2017 and a reminder letter again to the Cantonment Board on 25.05.2017 apprising about the financial condition of his family and seeking release of the pension, however, no heed was paid to that. The same was followed by subsequent reminders as well as multiple representations. The representation preferred by the petitioner was, however, rejected on account of his conviction in the criminal case. The petitioner was directed to inform the final outcome of the appeal pending before Court for further necessary action. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the order passed by the respondents withholding the entire pensionary amount is illegal and is not based on correct interpretation of Rule 8 and Rule 69 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Pension Rules’). He contends that provisional pension had been initially granted to him and that even though the appeal is still pending, there is no reason as to why the provisional pension be not assessed and released. It is further argued that once the provisions of Rule 8 of the Pension Rules mandate that the pension can be withheld even partly, henc